Exhibit P-1 – Planning Commission EIR Certification Resolution with Final EIR — Fresno City Council, February 1, 2024 (part 9 of 19)

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-4 @ 10 (E101012-09) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 o-Xylene ND 0.40 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 125 % 75-125 " " " " S-GC Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 119 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 102 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 101 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 22 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-5 @ 5 (E101012-10) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 Isopropyl alcohol (LCC) ND 8.0 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.040 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.80 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.40 " " " " " "

Page 23 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-5 @ 5 (E101012-10) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 o-Xylene ND 0.40 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 124 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 111 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 101 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 24 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-5 @ 10 (E101012-11) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 Isopropyl alcohol (LCC) ND 8.0 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.040 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.80 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.40 " " " " " "

Page 25 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-5 @ 10 (E101012-11) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 o-Xylene ND 0.40 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 124 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 113 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 100 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 100 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 26 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-6 @ 5 (E101012-12) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 Isopropyl alcohol (LCC) ND 8.0 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.040 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.80 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.40 " " " " " "

Page 27 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-6 @ 5 (E101012-12) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 o-Xylene ND 0.40 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 129 % 75-125 " " " " S-GC Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 116 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 99.5 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 101 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 28 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-6 @ 10 (E101012-13) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 Isopropyl alcohol (LCC) ND 8.0 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.040 " " " " " "
Bromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.40 " " " " " " Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chloroform ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Benzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Trichloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Dibromomethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Toluene ND 0.80 " " " " " "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Chlorobenzene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
Ethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.40 " " " " " "

Page 29 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Result Analyte Limit
Reporting
Units
Dilution
Factor Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
SV-6 @ 10 (E101012-13) Vapor Sampled: 07-Jan-21 Received: 08-Jan-21 o-Xylene ND 0.40 ug/l 0.04 EA11402 14-Jan-21 14-Jan-21 H&P 8260SV Styrene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromoform ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Bromobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 4.0 " " " " " "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Naphthalene ND 0.080 " " " " " "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 122 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 112 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: Toluene-d8 99.7 % 75-125 " " " "
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 103 % 75-125 " " " "

Page 30 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EA11402 - EPA 5030
Blank (EA11402-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 14-Jan-21
Isopropyl alcohol (LCC) ND 8.0 ug/l
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) ND 0.40 "
Chloromethane ND 0.40 "
Vinyl chloride ND 0.040 "
Bromomethane ND 0.40 "
Chloroethane ND 0.40 "
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) ND 0.40 "
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 "
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) ND 0.40 "
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) ND 0.40 "
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.40 "
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 "
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.40 "
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 "
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.40 "
Chloroform ND 0.080 "
Bromochloromethane ND 0.40 "
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 "
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 "
Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.080 "
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) ND 0.080 "
Benzene ND 0.080 "
Trichloroethene ND 0.080 "
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 "
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.40 "
Dibromomethane ND 0.40 "
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 "
Toluene ND 0.80 "
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.40 "
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.40 "
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.40 "
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.40 "
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.080 "
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.40 "

Page 31 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EA11402 - EPA 5030
Blank (EA11402-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 14-Jan-21
Chlorobenzene ND 0.080 ug/l
Ethylbenzene ND 0.40 "
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 "
m,p-Xylene ND 0.40 "
o-Xylene ND 0.40 "
Styrene ND 0.40 "
Bromoform ND 0.40 "
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) ND 0.40 "
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.40 "
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.40 "
n-Propylbenzene ND 0.40 "
Bromobenzene ND 0.40 "
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 "
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 "
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.40 "
tert-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 "
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.40 "
sec-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 "
p-Isopropyltoluene ND 0.40 "
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 "
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 "
n-Butylbenzene ND 0.40 "
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.40 "
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 4.0 "
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 "
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.40 "
Naphthalene ND 0.080 "
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.40 "
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 2.45 " 2.00 123 75-125
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 2.16 " 2.00 108 75-125 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 2.05 " 2.00 102 75-125
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2.08 " 2.00 104 75-125

Page 32 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Volatile Organic Compounds by H&P 8260SV - Quality Control H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc.

Batch EA11402 - EPA 5030
LCS (EA11402-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 14-Jan-21
Dichlorodifluoromethane (F12) 3.7 0.50 ug/l 5.00 74.6 70-130 Vinyl chloride 4.3 0.050 " 5.00 86.7 70-130
Chloroethane 4.6 0.50 " 5.00 91.8 70-130
Trichlorofluoromethane (F11) 4.5 0.50 " 5.00 90.2 70-130 1,1-Dichloroethene 5.2 0.50 " 5.00 105 70-130
1,1,2 Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113) 4.8 0.50 " 5.00 96.1 70-130 Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) 4.2 0.50 " 5.00 84.6 70-130 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 4.6 0.50 " 5.00 91.3 70-130
1,1-Dichloroethane 4.5 0.50 " 5.00 89.2 70-130
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.0 0.50 " 5.00 100 70-130
Chloroform 4.5 0.10 " 5.00 90.1 70-130
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4.7 0.50 " 5.00 93.4 70-130
Carbon tetrachloride 4.9 0.10 " 5.00 97.6 70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) 4.7 0.10 " 5.00 94.0 70-130
Benzene 4.6 0.10 " 5.00 92.5 70-130
Trichloroethene 4.9 0.10 " 5.00 97.6 70-130
Toluene 4.5 1.0 " 5.00 90.0 70-130
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 4.5 0.50 " 5.00 89.6 70-130
Tetrachloroethene 4.5 0.10 " 5.00 91.0 70-130
Ethylbenzene 4.7 0.50 " 5.00 93.1 70-130
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.6 0.50 " 5.00 91.0 70-130
m,p-Xylene 9.5 0.50 " 10.0 94.6 70-130
o-Xylene 4.6 0.50 " 5.00 91.1 70-130
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.0 0.50 " 5.00 80.4 70-130
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 2.88 " 2.50 115 75-125
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 2.50 " 2.50 100 75-125 Surrogate: Toluene-d8 2.65 " 2.50 106 75-125
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2.51 " 2.50 100 75-125

Page 33 of 34 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

SALEM Engineering Grp, Inc. - Fresno
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

SLM010821-12
Former Compress
Fresno, CA 93722 Shannon Lodge 15-Jan-21 15:55
2470 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-804-9678 Phone
760-804-9159 Fax
H&P Mobile
Geochemistry Inc.

Notes and Definitions
S-GC Surrogate recovery outside of control limits. The data was accepted based on valid recovery of the remaining surrogate(s).

Percent Recovery
RPD Relative Percent Difference
%REC
MDL Method Detection Limit
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit LCC Leak Check Compound
Appendix
H&P Mobile Geochemistry, Inc. is approved as an Environmental Testing Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in accordance with the DoD -ELAP Program and ISO/IEC 17025:2005 programs through PJLA, accreditation number 69070 for EPA Method TO-15, EPA Method 8260B and H&P 8260SV.

H&P is approved by the State of California as an Environmental Laboratory and Mobile Laboratory in conformance with the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) for the category of Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Chemistry of Hazardous Waste, certification numbers 2740, 2741, 2743 & 2745.

H&P is approved by the State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certification number 04138
The complete list of stationary and mobile laboratory certifications along with the fields of testing (FOTs) and analyte lists are available at www.handpmg.com/about/certifications.

All soil results are reported in wet weight.

Page 34 of 34 ends

Mobile
Geochemistry, Inc.
2470 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92010
& Field Office - Signal Hill, CA
W handpmg.com E [email protected]
P 760.804.9678 F 760.804.9159
DATE:(/-7 /2-
Page I of VAPOR I AIR Chain of Custody
Lab Client and Project Information Sample Receipt (Lab Use Only) Lab Client Consultant: iS Date Recid:1 / 21 Control #: i DDDI . t ck.LL C.:, i kt...a_,.c4,--i' (7-(111A-P Project Name / #: ,,--- I-0 e 6-444 c 0 "4..e re._-:7 -_-) H&P Project # 1..NA 0102 oti — Ic). ) Lab Client Project Manager et S kk, 1 Project Location: :_.r,e._ _ ,.3. 4
Lab Client Address: H , A Lab Work Order # E to to 1 2... --aq G3 . ....)0Ititc.1 1,-k_ Iltruc Report E-Mail(s):
461 i•-e 'i .k si...64._,,...„.0, t...), _........ __,...._,__ VI.._ Lab Client City, State, Zip: 5_ , civic 5_7( Sample Intact: Yes • No • See Notes Below r'{-1( Phone Number: ( 55; 11 cic7.7_ q -71.4c1 Receipt Gauge ID: 3m305 Temp: psi Outside Lab: Reporting Requirements Turnaround Time Sampler Information IV 1g;si: ii rei in #6-u 314 1 414i..<-
j S6 /-7-Zi 11 ba4 .-Q---Vb/
Lab PM Ini ials: SV
iyltandard Report ❑ Level III ❑ Level IV Standard (7 days for preliminary Sampler(s): c . LotIcy ji____ ❑ Excel EDD ❑ Other EDD: report, 10 days for final report) Signatu • - _ ❑ CA Geotracker Global ID: ❑ Rush (specify): Date: ikt 1 .2_\ Additional Instructions to Laboratory:
"Preferred VOC units (please choose one):
tKttg/L ❑ ktg/m3 ❑ ppbv ❑ ppmv ....

VOCs Standard Full List

1...8260SV El TO-15
'/OCs ShortList/ Project List
❑
8260SV0 TO-15
Oxygenates
❑
8260SV ❑ TO-15
Naphthalene
❑
8260SV E TO-15
TPHv as Gas
E] 8260SVm ❑ TO-15m
Aromatic/Aliphatic Fractions
❑
8260SVm ❑ TO-15m
Leak Check Compound
DFA *PA ❑ He
Methane by EPA 8015m Fixed Gases byASTM D1945
El CO2 11] 02 EN2

SAMPLE NAME

FIELD POINT
NAME
(if applicable)
DATE
mm/dd/yy
TIME
24hr clock

SAMPLE TYPE
Indoor Air (IA), Ambient
Air (AA), Subslab (SS),
Soil Vapor (SV)

CONTAINER

SIZE & TYPE
400mL/11.16L
Summa, Tedlar,
Tube, etc. CONTAINER
ID #4 ( 4)
Lab use only:

Receipt Vac
S'\)--k e.- 5 I/7f t( tvw 90 Lta- 4..- . , 0:".-1 . /o 7‹ gv.-( LO
tiV - 2:- C
fv-5D 03 / -1 % 33
i z:4o { 140 • 4.2)
ski- -7_ Q_ ‘ D f,:,) 'LK o(5" l7
e.)\1 -.). 0_ i 0 t)..lf IZ' 9) g-3 '6 ..P.4
5\i - 3 P 5 j3:ix 04.-,1 , 33
v,- 3 f 1 0 I. ' 0:5 67 0 . %
6\1 - q P S 1I:Z0 it-il , isc ‘f - tk E, to 15't \ill 15(0 .oW \4) v .--. 0 S .1 11 3c, V/ ;1 - . c5 4/1/
Approved/Relinquished byiiM , Compan t.eA,..A. Dite7 /i_ ( Time ,(.1::, Rece'veid Ve---"
K....
\
Company: Date: Time:

Approved/Relinquished by: r'--) V Company: Dale Time: Rece' b /-46:IPP / i F415-a21
Ti72O-6
Approved/Relinquished by: Company: Date: Time: Received by: Company: Date: Time:
*Approval constitutes as authorization to proceed with analysis and acceptance of conditions on back ppen ix tiHt, itev varzota, cnecnve Lab Client/Consultant: 1/4_,L,,tovv,.._ Grzyu-4to
Lab Client Project Manager5 Loce4
Lab Client Address: t4-i 3 \04170...4 jAyLl
Lab Client City, State, Zip:
",(:••(-4 \ q-51
Phone Number: Le) c,A)
Project Name / #:1 - L-11-12 0 I u.

Project Location:

Report E-Mail(s):
,,IA ZAA- e
Reporting Requirements
•
)Standard Report E Level III 11 Level IV
0 Excel EDD ❑ Other EDD:
0 CA Geotracker Global ID:

Turnaround Time
..Standard (7 days for preliminary
report, 10 days for final report)
0 Rush (specify):

Sampler Information
Sampler(s) s
Signatur
Date: (
Lab Client and Project Information

1.1 ‘-p Mobile
Geochemistry, Inc.
2470 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92010
& Field Office - Signal Hill, CA
W handpmg.comE [email protected]
P 760.804.9678 F 760.804.9159
VAPOR I AIR Chain of Custody DATE:lir
Page II- ofa---
Sample Receipt (Lab Use Only)
Date Rec'd: i i i 1 ou Control #: 2 t coo 1 o,
H&P Project #
CjCM
010
811 - ol_
Lab Work Order # 1 01
1 2-
Sample Intact: Yes • No • See Notes Below
Receipt Gauge ID: 5u605 Temp: riOutside Lab:

Receipt Notes/Tracking #:

Lab PM Initials: SVY\
Additional Instructions to Laboratory:
1_, ‘2._ L— s
* Preferred VOC units (please choose one):

Kitg/L ❑ [ig/m3 ❑ ppbv ❑ ppmv
VOCs Standard Full List N8260SV ❑ TO-15 VOCsShortList/ ProjectList ❑
8260SV ❑ TO-15
Oxygenates
❑
8260SV ❑ TO-15
Naphthalene
❑
8260SV ❑ TO-15
TPHvas Gas
❑
8260SVm ❑ TO-15m
Aromatic/Aliphatic Fractions
❑
8260SVm ❑ TO-15m
Leak Check Compound
DFA[ IPA ❑ He
Methane by EPA 8015m
Fixed Gases byASTM D1945
CO2 ❑ 02 ❑ N2

SAMPLE NAME

FIELD POINT
NAME
(if applicable)
DATE
mm/dd/yy
TIME
24hr clock

SAMPLE TYPE
Indoor Air (IA), Ambient
Air (AA), Subslab (SS),
Soil vapor (SV)

CONTAINER

SIZE & TYPE
400mL/1U6L
Summa, Tedlar,
Tube, etc.

CONTAINER
ID (Olt)
Lab use only:

Receipt Vac
\if
_Se i 0 1/71.7_( 15:1-6 SV 1-014-,t-- C-;( , 01 ie---
L, \I - u e 5 ' t. 4:- Gt.) 1) 1 A ct - • 3s- v
eZ
e,
_
Approved/Relinclths mitt : 1.)..... /Company:
(Ott
Time: (Iv
aq42.41A.

TiinT
Recett lie Company. Date Time:

Approved/Relinquished : Company: ate: ecei •q
d 4/ or •
,ti rp Company: i 14,Drte:
12PD
Approved/Relinquished by: Company: Date: Time: RecZed by: Company: Date: Time:
'Approval constitutes as authorization to proceed with analysis and acceptance of conditions on back Appendix 6A1, Rev 1/9/2019. Effective 1/21/2019 Customer Salem Engineering Group Phone Number (559) 907-9742 4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.

Job Details
City
Fresno
State
CA
Zip
93722
City FRESNO
State CA
Jobsite Location 2740 WEST NEILSON AVENUE
238455
Job Num
PO Num
WA Number
1-420-1016
Lead Technician TOLLESON, KODY Phone 510-468-8610 Email [email protected] Thank you for using GPRS on your project. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have questions regarding the results of this scanning, please contact the lead GPRS technician on this project.

Billing Address

EQUIPMENT USED
The following equipment was used on this project:
· Underground Scanning GPR antenna. Typically capable of detecting objects up to 8' deep or more in ideal conditions but maximum effective depth can vary widely and depends on site and soil conditions. Depth penetration is most commonly limited by moisture and clay/conductive soils. Depths provided should always be treated as estimates as their accuracy can be affected by multiple factors.
· Electromagnetic Pipe and Cable Locator. Detects electromagnetic fields. Used to actively trace conductive pipes and tracer wires, or passively detect power and radio signals traveling along conductive pipes and utilities. Depths provided should always be treated as estimates as their accuracy can be affected by multiple factors. · Magnetometer. Detects ferromagnetic objects at depths up to 8' by detecting their magnetic fields. Effective at detecting well heads, buried manholes, and other iron objects.

Work Performed
Ground Penetrating Radar Systems performed the following work on this project:

Underground Utility
The scope of work included scanning the specified area to locate underground utilities. A tracer signal was sent along any accessible metallic utility or tracer wire, and the area was scanned with GPR to locate any additional targets. The locations of any detected utilities and anomalies were marked directly at the site with paint, flags, stakes, or other appropriate means, and results were reviewed with onsite personnel unless otherwise noted. · The scope of work included scanning the areas around proposed soil borings. A radius of approximately 10' around each proposed soil boring was scanned unless otherwise noted. A total of 7 boring locations were scanned. · The customer requested to have 7 location scanned prior to soil borings. The customer also requested to search for 3 septic tanks and a UST.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Job Date : 1/4/2021
Job Summary
· The effective depth of GPR will vary throughout a site depending on surface and soil conditions. In this area, the maximum effective GPR depth was approximately 1-4 feet. · 2 out of 3 septic tanks were located and there was no data circular that was consistent with that of a UST. Unknown objects were located across the site and marked out. Please avoid all markings by a minimum of 2' when working.

Pictures
Utility Limitations

TERMS & CONDITIONS
http://www.gprsinc.com/termsandconditions.html

SIGNATURE
Contact Name
Shannon Lodge (559) 907-9742 [email protected]

Page 2 of 3 ends

Job Date : 1/4/2021
Job Summary

Page 3 of 3 ends

Job Date : 1/4/2021
Job Summary

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/16/23)

APPENDIX K

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/16/23) This page intentionally left blank
October 2022
SB 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
October 2022
SB 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE/WAREHOUSE PROJECT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. SNN2102
i
SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iv INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1 WATER SUPPLY RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS .............................................................. 6 Groundwater .................................................................................................................. 6 Basin Description.................................................................................................... 6 Groundwater Management.................................................................................... 8 Overdraft Conditions............................................................................................ 10 Groundwater Quality............................................................................................ 11 Estimated Groundwater Yield............................................................................... 12 Historic Groundwater Pumping ............................................................................ 14 Surface Water............................................................................................................... 15 USBR Friant Division Contract Supply ................................................................... 15 Fresno Irrigation District Supply ........................................................................... 18 Stormwater................................................................................................................... 20 Wastewater and Recycled Water.................................................................................. 20 Recycled Water Coordination............................................................................... 20 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal................................................. 22 Recycled Water System Description ..................................................................... 23 Potential, Current, and Project Recycled Water Rates.......................................... 26 Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Water Use ........................................ 29 Desalinated Water opportunities.................................................................................. 29 Water Exchanges and Transfers.................................................................................... 30 Exchanges and Transfer Opportunities................................................................. 30 Emergency Interties.............................................................................................. 30 Future Water Projects................................................................................................... 31 Expand Recycled Water Distribution System........................................................ 31 Expand Groundwater Recharge Capacity ............................................................. 31 Expand Surface Water Treatment Capacity .......................................................... 32 Beneficial Transfers and Exchanges...................................................................... 32 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water .................................................... 32 Supply Management............................................................................................. 33 Special Conditions................................................................................................. 33 Energy Intensity ............................................................................................................ 35 WATER SUPPLY ......................................................................................................... 36 ii
SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS APPLICABLITY .................................................................... 40 WATER DEMAND ...................................................................................................... 42 Citywide Demand Factors for Water Use...................................................................... 42 Proposed Project Water Demand ................................................................................. 43 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 43 Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 45 Proposed Project Water Demand......................................................................... 45 Applicability of the Urban Water Management Plan .................................................... 46 ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ............................................................................................ 49 iii
SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Project Location......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses................................. 3 Figure 3: Site Plan.................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: City Wells Specific Capacity ...................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Time Series of Groundwater Levels at Representative Wells................................. 11 Figure 6: Historic Groundwater Production .......................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Existing and Projected Land Use............................................................................. 45 Figure 8: Project Site in Relation to the 2020 UWMP Water Service Area Boundaries......... 47 Figure 9: Project Site General Plan Land Use Designation..................................................... 48 TABLES
Table A: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year)........................ 13 Table B: Available USBR Simulated Allocation (1922-2003) .................................................. 17 Table C: FID Diversions by Water Year Type (1964 to 2019) ................................................. 19 Table D: Projected FID Kings River Allocation for City, Normal Years.................................... 20 Table E: Historic Recycled Water Used Within Service Area (AF) .......................................... 24 Table F: Recycled Water within Service Area ........................................................................ 27 Table G: Actual Water Supplies............................................................................................. 32 Table H: Projected Water Supplies........................................................................................ 33 Table I: Water System Energy Intensity in 2020.................................................................... 35 Table J: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year)......................... 36 Table K: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year).................... 37 Table L: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison............................................... 37 Table M: Citywide Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water (acre-feet per year) ........ 42 Table N: Existing and Future Water Service Area Acreage .................................................... 44 iv
SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
1,2,3-TCP 1,2,3-trichloropropane
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Fresno
County County of Fresno
CPC California Plumbing Code
CVP Central Valley Project
CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act
CY calendar year
DBCP 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
DDR Department of Drinking Water
DPU Department of Public Utilities
DWR Department of Water Resources
FID Fresno Irrigation District
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
GIS Geographic Information System
gpm gallons per minute
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
IGSM Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model
Metro Plan Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan mg/L milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
NESWTF Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
NFWRF North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
v
SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
PCE perchloroethylene
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
project 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan
RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
SB Senate Bill
SESWTF Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
SOI Sphere of Influence
SR State Route
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWTF surface water treatment facility
TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TTDF Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
UV ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WRF Wastewater Reclamation Facility
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WSIP Water Storage Investment Program
WY water year
1 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) is conducting an environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project (project) in Fresno, Fresno County, California. This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 610, which requires public water agencies, parties, or purveyors that may supply water to certain proposed development projects to prepare a WSA for use in environmental documentation for such projects, pursuant to CEQA. This WSA contains information from the City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), 1 which was adopted by
the City in June 2021. A WSA is required for any project that is subject to CEQA and includes an industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupy more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 48.03-acre project site is currently vacant but previously consisted of an industrial warehouse that has since been demolished. The project site is bounded to the north by vacant, undeveloped land, to the east by North Hughes Avenue, to the south by West Nielsen Avenue, and to the west by North Marks Avenue. Regional access to the site is provided by State Route (SR) 180, which is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the project site, and SR-99, which is located approximately 0.8 mile east of the project site.

Figure 1 shows the site’s regional and local context. Figure 2 depicts an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses.

The project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. The proposed buildings would result in a total gross floor area of approximately 901,438 square feet. The buildings’ exterior would be up to 44 feet high, with an interior height of up to 36 feet, and designed with a total of 201 loading dock doors on the north and south sides of the buildings. The four buildings would consist of the following: Building 1 would be 468,812 square feet and would provide 122 loading dock doors; Building 2 would be 248,786 square feet and would provide 46 loading dock doors; Building 3 would be 93,074 square feet and would provide 18 loading dock doors; and Building 4 would be 90,766 square feet and would provide 15 loading dock doors. Figure 3 shows the project site plan.

The proposed project would comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) building measures and Title 24 standards. 1 Fresno, City of. 2021. City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June.

SOURCE: Esri Topographic Map (2021)
I:\SNN2102\GIS\MXD\Project_Location.mxd (6/7/2021)
FIGURE 1
2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project
Regional Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Location
Proposed Parcels
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Ã43
Ã168
Ã180
Ã41
Ã99
Project
Location
Project Vicinity
W Belmont Ave
W Dudley Ave
Railroad Tracks
W Franklin Ave
W Neilsen Ave
Wagon Wheel Rd
N Marks Ave
N Hughes Ave
S Roeding Dr
S H ughes
A ve
Lone Pine Rd
W Belmont Ave
W Dudley Ave
Railroad Tracks
W Franklin Ave
W Neilsen Ave
Wagon Wheel Rd
N Marks Ave
N Hughes Ave
S Roeding Dr
S
Hughes Ave
Lone Pine Rd

MOUNTAIN VIEW

CEMETARY

BELMONT

MEMORIAL
PARK
180
0 500 1000
Project Site
Proposed Parcels
FEET
SOURCES: Google Earth, 9/9/2019; LSA 2021
FreP:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Graphics\Figure 2.ai (1/20/2022) FIGURE 2
2740 West Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project
Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses FEET
0 120 240
SOURCE: HPA Architecture, Inc., 2021FreP:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Graphics\Figure 3.ai (10/5/2021) FIGURE 3
2740 West Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project
Site Plan
5 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
As shown in Figure 3, vehicular access to the site would be provided by North Hughes Avenue, West Nielsen Avenue, and North Marks Avenue.

A total of 594 on-site parking spaces would be provided for vehicles and trucks. Of the 594 parking spaces, 385 spaces would be dedicated for standard vehicles, 11 spaces would be dedicated for accessible standard vehicles, and 10 spaces would be dedicated for accessible vans. The remaining 188 spaces would be dedicated for trailers, would be located along the eastern and western edges of the project site, and would be behind two 8-foot-tall gates, which would be installed to separate the general parking area from the truck storage and dock loading area.

Consistent with City requirements, drought-tolerant landscaping would be provided throughout the project site.

The project site is located in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities, including: water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and natural gas infrastructure.

Water service to the project site would be provided by the City. New water within the project site would connect to the existing 14-inch main located on North Marks Avenue and the 16-inch main on North Hughes Avenue. The project would also include an on-site 12- inch main. The City would provide wastewater collection and treatment for the proposed project, and maintains an existing 12- to 18-inch line located in West Nielsen Avenue. The proposed project includes the installation of a new on-site 8-inch wastewater line that would connect to the City’s existing line. The proposed project would include construction of a new curb and gutter along North Marks Avenue, West Nielsen Avenue, and North Hughes Avenue that would connect to the existing Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) stormwater system.

Electricity and natural gas services to the site are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Existing underground utility connections and gas mains provide electricity and gas to the project site. New underground electrical lines would be installed.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur in two phases over a total 24-month period. The first phase would include the construction of Buildings 2, 3, and 4 and would occur for 12 months. The second phase would include the construction of Building 1 and would occur for 12 months. The proposed project would comply with City standards, including the City’s current building code, landscape standards, and lighting standards. In addition, the proposed project would be graded similar to other developments throughout Fresno.
6 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

WATER SUPPLY RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS
The City of Fresno relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin; surface water from the Central Valley Project (CVP), through a contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR); Kings River water, through a contract with Fresno Irrigation District (FID); and recycled water to meet current and future water demands. The following pages are extracted directly from the 2020 UWMP (Pages 6-1 through 6-32) in satisfaction of Water Code sections 10910(A)(1) and 10910(D)(2). This information is applicable to the entire City of Fresno municipal water service area, including the project site.

GROUNDWATER
The City overlies the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The City is one of many water purveyors that use groundwater from the Kings Subbasin.

The City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin. Until late 2004, the City relied solely on groundwater to meet the water demands. The City’s desire is to continue to use groundwater within a larger conjunctive use program that maximizes its existing water rights and surface water supply sources.

Basin Description
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has partitioned the State into 10 major hydrologic regions (also referred to as “basins”) and then further divided each basin into subbasins. The City is located in the Kings Subbasin (DWR Groundwater Subbasin Number 5-

22.08) and lies within the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin in the Central Valley of California. The Kings Subbasin covers approximately 1,530 square miles.

Basin Location
The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is bounded to the north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada, to the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi mountains, and to the west by the Coast Ranges. The Kings Subbasin, located within the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, is bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the east by the alluvium-granite rock interface of the Sierra Nevada foothills, to the south by the southern fork of the Kings River, and to the west by the Delta-Mendota and Westside Subbasins. The Kings Subbasin is split into seven Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) management areas, with Fresno located in the North Kings GSA. Figure 6-1 of the 2020 UWMP illustrates the location of Fresno within the Kings Subbasin.
7 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Area Geology
The upper several hundred feet of geology within the Kings Subbasin generally consists of highly permeable, coarse-grained deposits, which are termed older alluvium. Figure 6-2 of the 2020 UWMP presents an idealized hydrogeologic cross-section that illustrates the general depth of various lithologic features within the Kings Subbasin, near Fresno.

Coarse-grained stream channel deposits, associated with deposits by the ancestral San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, underlie much of northwest Fresno. There is a laterally extensive clay layer, at an average depth of approximately 250 feet below the ground surface, beneath most of the south and southeastern portions of Fresno.

Below the older alluvium, to depths ranging about 600–1,200 feet below ground surface, the finer-grained sediments of the tertiary-quaternary continental deposits are typically encountered. Substantial groundwater has been produced and utilized from these depths by the City. However, deeper deposits located in the southeastern and northern portions of Fresno have produced less groundwater.

There are also reduced deposits in the northern and eastern portions of Fresno, at depths generally below 700 or 800 feet, which are associated with high concentrations of iron, manganese, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, and methane gas. Groundwater at these depths does not generally provide a significant source for municipal supply wells.

Aquifer Characteristics
The aquifer beneath Fresno was characterized using data compiled during aquifer tests performed at the City’s production wells. As part of updating the detailed hydrogeologic evaluation, aquifer test data (pump tests) were reviewed to update the hydrogeologic analysis and evaluate the specific capacity data. The specific capacity indicates the ability of a particular well to produce water. Figure 4 shows the estimated specific capacity of each active well from early 2020 pump test data. As shown in the figure, the northwestern and southwestern portions of Fresno have wells with higher specific capacities. 8 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

Figure 4: City Wells Specific Capacity
Groundwater Management
In 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of Assembly Bill 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014, which is codified in Section 10720 et seq. of the California Water Code. This legislation created a statutory framework for groundwater management in California that can be sustained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of “critically overdrafted” basins to reach sustainability by 2040. The Kings Subbasin was designated a critically overdrafted basin in the DWR’s Bulletin 118. The North Kings GSA is working within the SGMA framework to reach groundwater sustainability.

The City was a founding member of the North Kings GSA, which consists of the following public agencies:
• FID
• City of Fresno
• City of Clovis
• City of Kerman
• County of Fresno
9 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
• Biola Community Services District
• Garfield Water District
• International Water District
The Kings Subbasin contains seven GSAs, including the North Kings GSA, as listed below and shown in Figure 6-1 of the 2020 UWMP:
• Central Kings GSA
• James Irrigation District GSA
• Kings River East GSA
• McMullin Area GSA
• North Kings GSA
• North Fork Kings GSA
• South Kings GSA
The seven GSAs operate cooperatively across the basin via a coordination agreement that ensures common approaches to sustainability items such as similarity of data usage and methodologies, consistent interpretations of the basin setting, and common assumptions and development of water budgets, monitoring networks, sustainable management criteria, and data management systems.

As required by SGMA, the North Kings GSA considers six sustainability indicators:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels, indicating significant and unreasonable depletion of supply
• Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality
• Significant and unreasonable land subsidence
• Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water Each indicator has an identified undesirable result, measurable objective, and minimum threshold. The measurable objective and minimum threshold allow the North Kings GSA to evaluate their progress for the subject indicator and determine if conditions are improving, remaining stable or degrading. The sustainability indicators of primary concern within the City are groundwater levels, groundwater storage, and groundwater quality. The methodology for the water quality indicators has been developed and the methodology is 10 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
still being developed for the groundwater levels and groundwater storage indicators. A copy of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is provided in Appendix G of the 2020 UWMP.

Overdraft Conditions
SGMA directs DWR to identify groundwater basins and subbasins in conditions of critical overdraft. As defined by SGMA, “A basin is subject to critical overdraft when continuation of present water management practices would probably result in significant adverse overdraftrelated environmental, social, or economic impacts.” As mentioned, DWR classifies the Kings Basin as being in a state of critical overdraft in its Bulletin 118, and the future of the groundwater basin has been projected to see continued overdraft conditions.

The Kings Subbasin groundwater aquifer supplies the City, other municipalities, agriculture, and rural residential areas with a consistent source of water. Like much of the Kings Subbasin, groundwater levels beneath Fresno were relatively shallow at 25 feet below ground surface in 1940, prior to the start of World War II. After the war, the State, including the City, began growing at a rapid rate. For the period from 1959 to 1968, it was reported groundwater levels declined at a rate of 2.8 feet per year. The City continued to rely on the groundwater aquifer for decades, monitoring groundwater levels continuously.

Groundwater levels since 1990 have declined at a lower rate than previously. Rates of decline slowed further starting in 2004, when the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) started operations and the City renewed focus on increasing groundwater recharge. In 2019 and 2020, surface water accounted for more than half of the total water supply in Fresno. With the reduced pumping due to higher reliance on surface water, the groundwater levels have begun to increase in certain areas of Fresno in the last few years.

Figure 5 provides a depiction of the City’s depth to groundwater for six representative wells across the Sphere of Influence (SOI) since 1960.
11 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

Figure 5: Time Series of Groundwater Levels at Representative Wells The City expects to continue to operate its three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) and pump groundwater at a lower rate than historically so that the groundwater basin can recover. According to the 2020 UWMP, one of the City’s primary objectives is to maximize the use of available surface water treatment supplies to reduce overall reliance on groundwater. Additionally, the City plans to continue its groundwater recharge program to protect the groundwater basin. Figure 6-5 of the 2020 UWMP shows the active and proposed recharge basins and FID Canals the City utilizes as part of groundwater recharge program.

Groundwater Quality
Groundwater within the North Kings Subbasin generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal water use and is described as being bicarbonatetype water, including calcium, magnesium, and sodium as the dominant ions. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations rarely exceed 600 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and range from 200 to 700 mg/L. However, the groundwater basin has been impacted by multiple chemical contaminants that affect the City’s ability to fully utilize the groundwater basin resources without some type of wellhead treatment in certain areas. 12 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Figure 6-6 of the 2020 UWMP presents the general location of regional plumes and major point sources within Fresno. The primary contaminants are nitrate, 1,2-dibromo-3- chloropropane (DBCP), 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), and other volatile organic compounds like trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). The City has received settlements in a number of lawsuits related to these contaminants and has constructed wellhead treatment systems and implemented blending plans for a number of wells.

Approximately 40 City wells are being treated for contaminants such as PCE, DBCP, TCE, 1,2,3-TCP, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, ethylene dibromide, and nitrate, and an additional 20 wells include treatment for iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide removal or corrosion control.

As shown in Figure 6-6 of the 2020 UWMP, extensive groundwater contamination nearly covers the City’s entire water service area; only areas located in the northwest appear to be relatively unaffected by regional groundwater contamination. Also, many of the City’s wells are impacted by one or more of the contaminant plumes (indicated by the presence of overlapping plumes on the figure). The figure also shows the approximately 93 existing active wells that are impacted by at least one contaminant plume and the 60 existing wells with wellhead treatment. The City is also managing contamination from spreading by pumping specific wells to control the plume.

Estimated Groundwater Yield
As part of the City’s ongoing preparation of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan (Metro Plan) update, the City is developing a storage accounting framework to estimate groundwater yield. The storage framework will track the City’s groundwater recharge, pumping, and flows into and out of the City’s SOI and incorporate biannual monitoring of well water level readings on a grid basis.

The most recent available information on the City’s groundwater yield is from a hydrologic groundwater and surface water model that was prepared for the Upper Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Authority. The City contributed additional funding to the effort so the model would be more refined for its service area and capable of assisting in the development of the City’s previous Metro Plan. The Kings Basin Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model (IGSM) was completed in 2007 and provided outputs specific to the City’s SOI. The IGSM was developed and calibrated utilizing data for the period of 1964–2004. Building off the calibrated IGSM, additional modeling was conducted in 2008 to evaluate the City’s proposed water supply plan and its ability to attain the balanced use of groundwater by the buildout year of 2025. The estimated groundwater yield within the City’s SOI presented in this section is based on the modeling efforts to establish the various natural elements of the underlying aquifer. 13 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Natural Recharge
As a result of the IGSM effort, the long-term average deep percolation from rainfall and irrigation-applied water for the period of 1964–2004 was found to be 42,700 acre-feet per year (AFY) for the entire SOI. However, as urbanization continues within the SOI, the amount of deep percolation will decline because of increased runoff and less open land for natural recharge. For 2005, it was estimated deep percolation would be about 37,000 AFY and would reduce annually, ultimately declining to and remaining at 27,000 AFY by buildout in 2025. The current General Plan anticipates SOI buildout will occur in 2056. Holding the 2005 value of 37,000 AFY and extending the 27,000 AFY to 2056, intermediate values were straight-line interpolated. Additionally, the City currently covers 73,500 acres of the 100,277 acres within its SOI, representing 73 percent urbanization, which would approximate the City’s water system service area. Table A shows estimated natural recharge through 2045.

Table A: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Natural
Recharge1 24,970 25,480 25,910 26,280 26,570 26,790
Net Subsurface
Inflow1 47,510 49,910 52,320 54,720 57,120 59,530
Sustainable
Yield 72,480 75,390 78,230 81,000 83,690 86,320
Intentional
Recharge2 60,000 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Total Estimated
Groundwater
Yield
132,480 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-1 (City of Fresno 2021). 1 Based on the Kings Basin Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model and projected City land growth.
2 Projected normal year intentional recharge from Table 4-7 of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Net Subsurface Inflow
Again, utilizing information developed from the IGSM, average net subsurface inflow into the SOI was characterized as being 64,800 acre-feet (AF) annually for the period of 1964– 2004. Applying the previously described 73 percent proportioning factor of the developed SOI area to overall SOI area, approximately 47,510 AFY would be attributed to the City’s water service area in 2020. This value will increase in future years as the City annexes more land until the SOI is built out. Table A shows the estimated subsurface inflows for future 14 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
years. The City has historically benefited from the net subsurface inflows and requires these flows for replenishment necessary to maintain the sustainable yield of the groundwater aquifer system.

Intentional Groundwater Recharge
The City has long made efforts toward offsetting the decline of groundwater levels and minimizing overdraft conditions through an active intentional recharge program that started in 1971. Through cooperative agreements with FMFCD and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but also those of these two agencies. Utilizing available surface water supplies, the City recharged on average approximately 60,000 AFY from 2000 to 2019; however, with the reduction in available surface water supplies, intentional recharge declined to 34,700 AF in 2014 and 19,800 AF in 2015, followed by an increase in recharge in years 2016, 2017, and 2019 to help replenish the aquifer. In 2019, the City’s recharge of 82,993 AF was the maximum annual recharge attained during this period. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous 5 years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. However, during wet years, the City will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years, when surface water is not available. Intentional recharge is included in the non-potable demand projections as well as contributing to the estimated groundwater yield presented in Table A.

Historic Groundwater Pumping
The City has historically relied on groundwater as its main supply source prior to the construction of its SWTFs. With the recent investments in surface water infrastructure, the City has been able to drastically reduce its groundwater pumping. Figure 6 shows the historic groundwater pumping since 2003. As shown, pumping has dropped significantly since 2003, the City’s peak year for groundwater production. 15 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

Figure 6: Historic Groundwater Production

SURFACE WATER
With the completion and operation of the Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF), surface water is now a primary water supply used to meet potable demands within Fresno. The City contracts with FID for Kings River water and with the USBR for CVP water from the Friant-Kern Canal. The surface water supply is used either for potable uses through treatment and distribution or delivery to recharge basins for groundwater recharge. The Kings River water year (WY) is October through September, while USBR uses a WY of March through February. The City has historically used a calendar year (CY) for its analysis, so monthly water supply information was compiled in CY format for this report.

USBR Friant Division Contract Supply
The City, through an agreement originally executed in January 1961, secured a surface water supply from the USBR CVP Friant Division. This agreement, for an annual water supply of 60,000 AF of Class 1 water, was last renewed in 2010 as a Section 9(d) contract that provides water from the San Joaquin River in perpetuity. A copy of the renewed contract is provided in Appendix H of the UWMP. The USBR CVP Friant Division facilities generally include Friant Dam (Millerton Reservoir), the Friant-Kern Canal, and the Madera Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is maintained and operated by the Friant Water Authority. The USBR water supply is a wholesale supply.
16 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Construction of Friant Dam was completed in 1947, and the dam began making diversions to the Friant-Kern Canal in 1949. Full operations of the CVP Friant Division did not commence until the Madera Canal was completed in 1951. Class 1 water was intended to be a supply that would be dependable in practically every year, regardless of the type of hydrologic WY. Class 2 water is essentially excess water available as determined by USBR and is less reliable than Class 1 water.

Class 1 water was historically very reliable until the 2006 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Agreement between the departments of the Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority (which is now the Friant Water Authority). The City is a member of the Friant Water Authority. The settlement ended an 18-year legal dispute over the operation of Friant Dam brought by a coalition of conservation and fishing groups. The agreement characterized Class 1 deliveries by six hydrologic year types based on a recurrence over an 82-year simulation (1922–2003): wet, normal-wet, normal-dry, dry, critical-high, and critical-low. The projected surface water available for the City from USBR during each hydrologic year defined by the 2006 Settlement Agreement is summarized in Table B. As shown in the table, the average simulated delivery is 53,680 AFY and the median simulated delivery, which is similar to normal year delivery, is 60,000 AFY. The median value is higher than the average value because 100% allocation of 60,000 AF is simulated in 50 of 82 years but the dry and critical years result in substantial reductions, which bring down the average allocation. 17 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Table B: Available USBR Simulated Allocation (1922-2003) Water Year
Type
Percent of
Years over
Simulation
Period of
Deliveries1
Number of
Years in that
Year Type
Range of
Allocation to
City (AF)
Average
Allocation to
City (AF)
Wet Highest 20% 16 60,000 60,000
Normal-Wet 50% to 80% 25 60,000 60,000
Normal-Dry 20% to 50% 25 47,500 to 60,000
57,060
Dry 5% to 20% 12 28,100 to 46,800
36,575
Critical2 Lowest 5% 4 13,900 to 24,700
19,025
Total 82 Average 53,680
Median 60,000
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-2 (City of Fresno 2021). 1 As defined in 2006 Settlement Agreement
2 Includes both critical-high and critical-low, which are differentiated by the amount of unimpaired runoff. The simulation uses deliveries through 2006 and does not include the zero allocation years in 2014 and 2015.

AF = acre-feet
The Settlement Agreement estimates the reduced supply available to the City compared to historic supplies, most evident in dry years. Restrictions on exports from the Delta have hindered the USBR from making deliveries to the Exchange Contractors via the DeltaMendota Canal. The Exchange Contractors allowed the formation of the CVP Friant Division by agreeing to not exercise their historic pre-1914 water rights to the San Joaquin and Kings rivers if guaranteed water deliveries continued through the Delta-Mendota Canal or other facilities. If USBR is unable to deliver water to the Exchange Contractors, they have the right to receive their water from the San Joaquin River, which reduces the Class 1 water availability.

Reduced deliveries from the Delta to the Exchange Contractors resulted in the CVP Friant Division contractors with zero allocations of Class 1 water in USBR WY 2014 and 2015, though the City received USBR deliveries in CY 2014 (prior to the USBR WY starting in March). Annual USBR deliveries since 2007 are shown in Figure 6-6 of the 2020 UWMP.

In addition to the Class 1 water available to the City, the USBR contract also makes available water classified as: recovered water account water; Section 215 water; and unreleased 18 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
restoration flows, unreleased recirculation flows, and uncontrolled season flows. The complexities of each water type are beyond the scope of this report but are mentioned here to reflect the other water acquisition opportunities afforded to the City through this contract. The San Joaquin River water supply has excellent water quality as it originates from snowmelt from the high Sierras and has not been detrimentally impacted.

Fresno Irrigation District Supply
FID is one of 28 agencies that receives an entitlement of water from the Kings River through the Kings River Water Association. Water entitlements for Kings River Water Association contract members are determined based on a methodology that was initially developed in 1917–1919 to establish entitlements for early claimed rights holders. The methodology was based on historic mean daily natural flow conditions at Piedra, which is approximately 3 miles downstream from the then yet to be built Pine Flat Dam and “at the heart of Kings River uses, regulation, and stream control and storage.” On December 20, 2016, the Revised, Amended, and Restated Cooperative Agreement was executed between FID and the City for Water Utilization and Conveyance (2016 FID Agreement). The 2016 FID Agreement replaces the 1976 Cooperative Agreement and ends in 2035. The agreement identifies the City’s contracted percentage of FID’s Kings River water based on the City’s water service area located within the FID service area as a percentage of the FID land area. FID land area varies slightly every year because it is dependent on the acreage receiving water deliveries for that year rather than the total acreage within FID (roughly 200,000 acres). As the City incorporates new land area into its service area, the percentage of FID supply increases. However, the 2016 FID Agreement sets the maximum percentage as 29.0 percent, although the City’s service area is anticipated to expand and encompass more than 29.0 percent of FID’s service area between 2025 and 2030. In 2020, the City’s percentage of overall FID Kings River deliveries was 25.79 percent.

The FID Agreement identifies that the 29.0 percent maximum was based on moderate growth in Growth Area 1 of the City’s SOI (shown in Exhibit C in the 2016 Agreement). As such, the supply projections in this plan limit the City’s FID supply with the 29.0 percent cap, but if the agreement were revised in the future the City’s FID allocation percentage could grow beyond 29.0 percent as the water service area expands.

The City has historically not used all of its available allocation in any given year, although it pays a flat rate for its total allocation regardless of use. Water unused by the City is reallocated by FID to its other customers.

The City’s potential supply from FID was summarized using actual Kings River deliveries for CYs 1964–2019, then categorized by the same WY types used for the USBR Friant supply.

The range and average FID deliveries by WY type are shown in Table C. The average of all 56 CY delivery totals of FID Kings River deliveries is 452,541 AF, which equates to an average potential City supply of 131,237 AF, assuming the maximum 29.0 percent City supply 19 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
percentage. Table D lists the historic and projected allocation of FID’s Kings River water for the City in normal (average) CYs. The City percentage of FID supplies was estimated assuming the City’s water service area will grow from 59,100 acres to 84,300 acres by buildout.

Table C: FID Diversions by Water Year Type (1964 to 2019) Water Year
Type
Percent of
Years1
Number of
Years
between
194 and
2019
Total FID Deliveries (AF)
2 Example
Average
Available to
City3
Range Average
Wet Highest 20% 11 563,500 to
644,600
590,700 171,300
Normal-Wet 50% to 80% 17 452,800 to
563,300
513,700 149,000
Normal-Dry 20% to 50% 17 362,600 to
448,000
415,000 120,400
Dry 5% to 20% 8 253,700 to
362,000
315,700 91,600
Critical Lowest 5% 3 158,100 to
253,300
210,200 61,000
56 Average 453,800 131,600
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-3 (City of Fresno 2021). 1 As defined in the 2006 Settlement Agreement
2 Assigns water year type defined in the 2006 Settlement Agreement to FID deliveries from 1964 to 2019.
3 Based on the maximum 29.0 percent City supply percentage to provide an example City supply amount.

AF = acre-feet
20 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Table D: Projected FID Kings River Allocation for City, Normal Years Year Projected Total FID
Allocation, AFY
Projected Allocation to
City, AFY1
2025 27.55% 125,030
2030 29.00% 131,600
2035 29.00% 131,600
2040 29.00% 131,600
2045 29.00% 131,600
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-4 (City of Fresno 2021). 1 Projected City Allocation (%) x 453,800 AFY (estimated normal year diversion by FID, per Table 6-3 of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [Table G]) AFY = acre-feet per year
FID = Fresno Irrigation Dis

STORMWATER
The Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area and surrounding rural vicinities are within the service area boundaries of the FMFCD, which has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows. Most stormwater in Fresno drains to urban stormwater basins, where the water is retained to attenuate peak-flow runoff and recharge stormwater, or is pumped to local irrigation canals for conveyance away from the municipal areas. FMFCD’s operation of stormwater basins is predicated on maintaining storage capacity for rain events, which limits accessibility for recharge activities during the rainy season. FMFCD estimates the amount of stormwater that is recharged each wet season. However, recharge attained with the FMFCD basins largely occurs in May through October, when limited storage capacity is required. Dry-season recharge is accomplished by diverting surface waters from the Kings River and Millerton Reservoir using City-allocated surface water. It is difficult to estimate stormwater recharge volumes as there is no physical measurement of stormwater flows into the basins, and infiltration rates can vary with water elevation and degree of siltation in the basin. However, FMFCD estimates that stormwater recharge in urban basins during the winter months may range from 7,000 AF per year to 22,200 AF per year.

WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER
Recycled Water Coordination
The City is currently expanding its recycled water supplies to increase offset use of potable water for landscape irrigation. In 2010, the City completed a Recycled Water Master Plan (adopted by the City Council in 2013) to evaluate and plan for increased recycled water use in Fresno. The City’s last Metro Plan, adopted in 2014, also outlined projects to increase the use of recycled water to offset potable demands. The City is currently updating the Metro 21 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Plan and will reevaluate recommendations and projects to increase recycled water use. The City owns and operates two water reclamation facilities (WRFs): (1) the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and (2) the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF), both of which can produce Title 22 recycled water for use within the City’s service area.

Coordination with other water agencies and potential consumers within the planning area is inherently within the purview of the City’s Department of Public Utilities (DPU) as this department provides both water and wastewater services. DPU has been on the forefront of numerous water supply preservation, enhancement, and development projects and programs for decades. The concept of multiagency coordination is fully embraced by the department, as is evident with the previously discussed joint agency agreements and the commitment to construct new infrastructure to further develop new resources. The endeavor to develop recycled water as a resource was a requirement of a development in north Fresno, where the developer was conditioned to have a net-zero impact on water resources. The fundamental component of this development was the construction and dedication of the NFWRF to the City.

There are only a few agencies besides the City that have wastewater collection and treatment facilities within and immediately adjacent to the plan area. These agencies include the City of Clovis, Malaga County Water District, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District.

As the City is the primary responsible agency for wastewater collection and treatment for its annexed areas and certain County islands, it has taken the lead role of developing and implementing recycled water facilities to serve the same area.

City of Clovis
The RWRF was developed under a Joint Powers Authority agreement executed in 1977 among the City of Fresno, the City of Clovis, and the County of Fresno. Both of the cities contribute to the cost of operations and maintenance and capital expenditures for the RWRF based on formulas in the agreement. This facility provides service for most of Clovis’ sewer flows.

The City of Clovis recently constructed its own wastewater treatment facility that produces tertiary-level effluent and is distributed in a dedicated purple pipe system within portions of its service area.

County of Fresno
The County of Fresno, like the City of Clovis, is a party to the RWRF Joint Powers Authority for treatment of flows from unincorporated areas encompassed by the City’s service area. 22 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Malaga County Water District
Malaga County Water District provides water and sewer service to an unincorporated County area of about 2.25 square miles, which covers a small portion of the City’s SOI. The district provides wastewater collection and treatment for residential and non-residential customers.

Pinedale County Water District
Pinedale County Water District provides water, sewer, and solid waste service to an area of about 2 square miles, which covers an unincorporated County island and a portion of Fresno. The district provides wastewater collection to an area of 699 acres and diverts the flow to the City’s collection system for treatment at the RWRF.

Pinedale Public Utility District
Pinedale Public Utility District provides wastewater, street lighting, street sweeping, and landscape maintenance. The district services an area of 362 acres in the northern portion of Fresno, serving both an unincorporated County island and portions of the city. The collected wastewater is diverted to the City’s collection system for treatment at the RWRF.

Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
The City’s wastewater collection system was originally developed in 1891 with the installation of a 24-inch outfall sewer that discharged to a 40-acre sewer farm located southwest of town. The amount of land and number of facilities at this location continued to be expanded as Fresno grew over the years. Today, the City’s wastewater collection system consists of about 1,630 miles of pipes ranging in size from 4 inches in diameter to 84 inches in diameter. This collection system also utilizes 15 lift stations throughout Fresno, ranging in pumping capacity from 0.25 million gallons per day (mgd) to 2.2 mgd.

Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area
The City is served by two wastewater treatment plants, briefly described below.

Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility.The RWRF has developed from what was once a sewer farm to a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility. In 1966, the City of Fresno was appointed the sewering agency for the local metropolitan region and shortly after began long-range planning and construction of new facilities to handle increasing flows and regulatory requirements. The RWRF treats flows from not only Fresno, but also sewered County areas (some County areas remain unsewered), the City of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District.

Flows received at this facility peaked at 81,100 AF in 2006 and have been steadily decreasing since, with the average influent flow about 63,000 AF over the last 5 years. The 23 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
RWRF includes preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units with disinfection. Secondary treatment consists of three treatment trains with an annual average capacity of 87 mgd, consisting of 30 mgd for Train A and 57 mgd for Trains B and C combined. In 2017, a 5 mgd tertiary treatment system—the Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility (TTDF)—was completed. The system can be expanded to 15 mgd and ultimately to 30 mgd.

The City has three primary means of effluent disposal:

1. Undisinfected secondary effluent to on-site and off-site farmland for restricted irrigation

2. Undisinfected secondary effluent to percolation ponds

3. Disinfected tertiary effluent to the recycled water distribution system The percolated effluent has been deemed equivalent to Title 22 tertiary-treated water by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Department of Drinking Water (DDW).

The City has been extracting this water for reuse in areas within and surrounding the RWRF, as well as to FID’s canals, through an exchange agreement for delivery to FID agricultural customers.

The discharged effluent is within the City boundaries and located just southwest of the metropolitan area. The treated effluent percolation ponds are within the City’s SOI and hydrologic sphere that benefit the City’s overall regional water budget.

North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility.The NFWRF was constructed as part of a residential, commercial, and golf course master planned development located in the northern portion of Fresno. As a condition of the planned community, the developer was required to construct a wastewater treatment facility that would produce tertiary-level effluent for use within the development to ensure the overall project had a net-zero impact on water resources. This facility is presently rated at 0.71 mgd (average monthly flow) and

1.07 mgd (maximum daily flow). However, the ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection system was only validated for 300 gallons per minute (gpm) (0.43 mgd), which is the current flow limit until the DDW approves a higher flow. This facility is expandable to 1.25 mgd (average monthly flow). The disinfected tertiary effluent from the plant is largely used to irrigate the Copper River Ranch Golf Course. Of the 325 AF of wastewater treated in 2020, 54 AF was used for irrigation of turf. Treated but unused effluent is diverted to the City’s collection system to the RWRF.

Recycled Water System Description
The 2014 Metro Plan recommended expanding reuse by: (1) using the NFWRF effluent to irrigate the Copper River Ranch Golf Course; and (2) deriving up to 25,000 AFY of recycled water for landscape irrigation or other non-potable uses from the RWRF or new satellite WRFs. Since then, the City has irrigated the Copper River Ranch Golf Course with recycled 24 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

However, the City is currently updating the Metro Plan and reevaluating the target volume of reuse in Fresno beyond the southwest system considering new conditions and regulations, including the potential for potable reuse in the future.

Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
As mentioned above, the RWRF produces undisinfected secondary effluent for restricted irrigation to on-site and off-site farmlands and disinfected tertiary-treated effluent for the recycled water distribution system.

The City’s RWRF diverts a portion of the undisinfected secondary effluent to irrigate nonfood crops grown adjacent to this facility. The practice of using the secondary effluent to irrigate non-food crops has been carried out for decades and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The City owns nearly 3,300 acres of land for and around the RWRF, consisting of percolation ponds (1,750 acres) and other land available to farm non-food crops. Table E provides the annual quantities of recycled water applied to these crops for the period from 2015 to 2019.

Table E: Historic Recycled Water Used Within Service Area (AF) Recycle Water
Facility 2015 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020
RWRF, Secondary
Effluent (NonFood Crop
Irrigation)
8,688 7,329 4,540 7,031 3,652 3,845
RWRF, Tertiary
Effluent 531 485 423 867 912 858
NFWRF 62 110 0 0 19 54
Total 9,281 7,924 4,963 7,898 4,583 4,757
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-5 (City of Fresno 2021).

Note: Reuse at the NFWRF was zero in 2017 and 2018 because the recycled water delivery system was offline for system repairs.

AF = acre-feet
NFWRF = North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
RWRF = Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
Additionally, the RWRF produces Title 22 disinfected tertiary-treated effluent through the TTDF completed in 2017 and through tertiary-equivalent soil aquifer-treated recycled water recovered from the percolated secondary effluent. A series of 15 groundwater wells located 25 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
at the RWRF are used to extract previously percolated effluent groundwater from beneath the facility. The extracted groundwater has the potential to be used for higher beneficial use if it can be demonstrated this water has attained a level of treatment satisfactory to meet disinfected tertiary levels. The City embarked on a joint project with the WateReuse Research Foundation to demonstrate to State regulatory agencies the soil aquifer-treated recycled water met Title 22 levels. The culmination of this study is presented in a final report entitled “Demonstration of Filtration and Disinfection Compliance Through SoilAquifer Treatment,” which was completed in 2013. This study concluded that, based on the documented sampled water quality data, the extracted groundwater met requirements for classification as disinfected tertiary-level recycled water. The SWRCB DDW stated that the percolated effluent water meets the tertiary treatment classification, and the City is making plans for its use as part of its recycled water production and distribution system. The combined rated production yield of the 15 wells, if run year-round, would be approximately 32,000 AFY. The City plans to blend the recycled extraction well water with the disinfected tertiary-level recycled water produced from the 5 mgd TTDF to feed the southwest recycled water distribution system. As new sales grow for the recycled water, additional recycled extraction of well water will be utilized to feed the City’s southwest recycled water system.

The tertiary-equivalent soil aquifer-treated recycled water (recovered groundwater) is also used for on-site irrigation and transport to FID canals for delivery to customers during the irrigation season, as facilitated through an exchange agreement with FID.

Since the completion of the 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP), the City has constructed most of the southwest recycled water system, shown in Figure 6-9 of the UWMP. The southwest recycled water system consists of a 3.2-million-gallon recycled water reservoir located at the RWRF, a 6,000 gpm (8.64 mgd) recycled water pump station located at the RWRF, a 640 gpm booster pump station (Roeding Park Booster), and 15.7 miles of 10- inch to 54-inch recycled water pipeline. Roughly 7.5 miles of pipeline remain to be constructed. The City also updated the demand and distribution system from the 2010 RWMP with the 2019 Citywide Recycled Water Demand and Southwest Recycled Water System Analysis to identify potential recycled water customers. This recent analysis will be incorporated into the latest Metro Plan update.

North Fresno Water Reclamation Facility
As described earlier, the City has an existing recycled water plant in the northern portion of Fresno that receives and treats sewage from the residential, commercial, and golf course master-planned community. The NFWRF was constructed in 2008 but was not fully operational until 2009 due to the inability to run properly in extremely low-flow conditions.

Subsequent modifications at the plant allowed it to run on a regular basis in 2010 and again in 2014 for UV approval. The amount of reuse has varied substantially since 2016 because the delivery system was offline in 2017 and 2018 for treated water basin slope repairs. City 26 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
staff indicated that 2016 is representative of operations going forward. The disinfected tertiary effluent is conveyed in a dedicated pipeline to an adjacent golf course for irrigation purposes. The quantities used for irrigation purposes are shown in Table E for the period of 2015–2019.

Potential, Current, and Project Recycled Water Rates
The 2020 actual recycled water use and projected recycled water use in Fresno’s service area is included in Table F. Secondary undisinfected reuse is projected to continue to be used to irrigate non-food crops adjacent to the RWRF in the future. The projected secondary undisinfected use going forward is based on the average use from 2015 to 2020.

Additionally, the amount of tertiary recycled water from the RWRF is projected to increase to provide 6,210 AF for landscape and agricultural irrigation as the southwest recycled water system is built out. Projected tertiary recycled water from the NFWRF for golf course irrigation is projected to be 110 AF annually through 2045.

The 2015 UWMP anticipated that 21,200 AFY of recycled water would be produced and utilized in 2020. The previous projected increases in recycled water were based on recommendations from the 2010 RWMP, which included projects to increase recycled water use for landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, industrial use, and blending with raw surface water for groundwater recharge. Since the 2010 RWMP, the City has focused on constructing the southwest recycled water system to increase landscape and agricultural irrigation in the southwest portion of Fresno. The City is also currently updating the Metro Plan that is evaluating recycled water alternatives in Fresno and is expected to update its RWMP following the Metro Plan update to serve as a new guiding planning document for recycled water use by the City.
27 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22) Table F: Recycled Water within Service Area
Beneficial
Use Type
Potential
Beneficial
Uses of
Recycled
Water
Number
of
Potential
Uses of
Recycled
Water
(AF)
General Description
of 2020 Uses
Level of
Treatment
2020
(AF)
2025
(AF)
2030
(AF)
2035
(AF)
2040
(AF)
2045
(AF)
Agricultural
irrigation1
Non-food
crop
irrigation
7,900 Irrigate non-food
crops
Secondary,
Undisinfected
3,845 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900
Landscape
irrigation
(excludes
golf course)
Landscape
irrigation
5,800 Landscape irrigation;
distributed through
the southwest
recycled water
distribution system
Tertiary 858 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
Agricultural
irrigation1
Food crop
irrigation
410 Irrigate limited food
crops; distributed
through the
southwest recycled
water distribution
system
Tertiary - 410 410 410 410 410
Golf course
irrigation
Landscape
irrigation
110 Copper River Golf
Course
Tertiary 54 110 110 110 110 110
- Total: 4,757 14,220 14,220 14,220 14,220 14,220
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-6 (City of Fresno 2021).

Table footnotes continued on next page.
28 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22) Notes: Name of Supplier Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water: City of Fresno Name of Supplier Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System: City of Fresno Supplemental Volume of Water Added in 2020: 0%
Source of 2020 Supplemental Water: N/A
1 Recycled water for agricultural irrigation does not offset the City’s potable water demands, and as such, is excluded from projected recycled water in subsequent tables.

AF = acre-feet
29 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Water Use
The 2010 RWMP identified the need for the City to adopt an ordinance to establish a recycled water policy and criteria for its use within the City’s SOI. On July 14, 2014, the Recycled Water Ordinance was adopted by the City Council, laying the foundation for the expanded use of recycled water within Fresno.

The focus of the ordinance includes the following:
• Establish an Administrative Authority.
• Establish approved uses of recycled water.
• Define areas of potential eligibility for recycled water service. • Specify voluntary uses of recycled water, depending on user classifications. • Require installation of a transmission and distribution infrastructure. • Encourage the use of voluntary retrofits for existing users that may not be addressed in the ordinance.
• Require the City of Fresno to prepare Rules and Regulations. • Provide enforcement and severability clauses.
• Establishing a means for the City to provide recycled water at a negotiated price.

Efforts to further the use of recycled water include the requirement that new developments within planned major recycled water distribution mains must install purple pipe. Then, as the City’s capital projects construct a distribution infrastructure, these segments will be in place to facilitate connections to new customers, reduce program costs by avoiding digging up new street improvements, and reduce disruption to vehicular traffic.

Most of the southwest recycled water distribution system from the RWRF completed construction in 2021. The City has identified potential customers to connect to the recycled water system once it is completed to offset potable demand and increase recycled water use in Fresno.

DESALINATED WATER OPPORTUNITIES
Fresno is located in the central San Joaquin Valley; therefore, seawater desalination is not applicable to the City. Additionally, the groundwater that exists within the immediate area of Fresno is not brackish in nature and does not require desalination treatment. 30 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

WATER EXCHANGES AND TRANSFERS
Exchanges and Transfer Opportunities
USBRR Supply
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 authorized the transfer of all or a portion of a CVP contractor’s water supply to any other California water users or water agencies. The CVPIA allows water transfers as long as they are consistent with federal and State water laws. The primary component of the CVPIA that specifies water transfer provisions for federal water supplies is Section 3405(a), which includes provisions regarding maximum annual water transfer, beneficial use, and approvals.

As part of the City’s current Metro Plan update, the City is evaluating potential future water transfers and exchanges of its periodically available USBR water. Currently, the City does not have any plans to transfer its USBR water to other California water users.

FID/RWRF Groundwater Exchange Supply
Since 1974, the City has had an agreement with FID to exchange recycled water for the delivery of surface water east of Fresno (Appendix I of the 2020 UWMP). The agreement between fid and the city for exchange of recycled water allows for water pumped from beneath the RWRF to be conveyed to FID’s Dry Creek and Houghton canals for delivery to growers west of Fresno. In exchange for the water delivered to FID by the City, FID agreed to deliver 46% of the total from either its Kings River entitlement or USBR Class II supply to growers or basins in the eastern portion of FID “insofar as is feasible and practical.” The water is to be considered additional to the water that would have been delivered to the eastern portion of FID, such that the additional delivered water used by growers is assumed to offset groundwater pumping in the area and, therefore, provide a groundwater basin benefit. This is an indirect benefit to the City.

The agreement includes a minimum of 100,000 AF delivered over a 10-year period and no more than 30,000 AF in any given year. As shown in Figure 6-10 of the 2020 UWMP, the City exceeded the maximum yearly delivery in 2003 and 2004 and has maintained more than 100,000 AF of deliveries over a 10-year period. However, since 2016, the City has reduced RWRF groundwater exchange deliveries. The City is currently discussing an update to the agreement with FID, while the 2020 Metro Plan will identify and recommend other beneficial uses for the City’s percolated effluent.

Emergency Interties
In 2007, the cities of Fresno and Clovis executed an agreement for interconnection of their potable water systems to provide service during emergencies and other times of hardship in either community. The agreement covers interconnections, including apportionment of 31 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
capital costs, at two locations: Leonard Avenue at the Gould Canal alignment and Behymer Avenue at Willow Avenue.

The agreement provided for temporary deliveries from Clovis to southeast Fresno through the Leonard Avenue connection through 2013. The Leonard Avenue interconnection was constructed and remains in place for emergency uses through manual operation.

The agreement also provided for temporary deliveries from Fresno to northern Clovis through the Behymer Avenue connection through 2015. However, the Behymer Avenue interconnection has yet to be constructed and, if constructed in the future, would serve only for emergency use.

FUTURE WATER PROJECTS
The City is currently updating its Metro Plan, which will recommend programs and projects to improve the City’s water supply portfolio and continue providing a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply. While the outcomes of the Metro Plan update are currently being developed, the City’s ongoing and future projects to improve its supply portfolio include:
• Expansion of the recycled water distribution system
• Expansion of the groundwater recharge program
• Expansion of surface water treatment capacity
• Beneficial transfers and exchanges
Expand Recycled Water Distribution System
As described above, the City has made significant improvements to its recycled water system over the last 5 years and is currently expanding its recycled water distribution system. The expanded distribution system allows an additional 5,000 AF of recycled water use in the City to offset potable demands that can be used in all hydrological year types. The expansion is projected to be completed by 2025.

Expand Groundwater Recharge Capacity
With the acknowledgement that the groundwater aquifer is and will remain an integral resource, the City is currently evaluating an expanded recharge program as part of the Metro Plan update. Expanding intentional recharge may include the development of new dedicated intentional recharge facilities and/or joint projects for basins with FMFCD and potentially FID. The target for recharge expansion is to maximize storage within the groundwater basin and optimize use of available surface water supplies in normal years.

The stored water will be used more in the single-dry-year and consecutive-dry-years scenarios, when surface water supplies are less available. The timing for groundwater recharge capacity expansion will be examined as part of the Metro Plan update and, for the 32 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
UWMP, is assumed to increase to allow for an additional 540 AFY of recharge to occur on average each year.

Expand Surface Water Treatment Capacity
A key component to the success of the City’s ability to reverse the long-time overreliance on groundwater is the construction of its surface water treatment facilities. These have allowed the City to optimize the use of available surface water supplies. The City’s NESWTF currently has a 30 mgd capacity and the capability to expand up to 60 mgd. The SESWTF is currently permitted to produce up to 54 mgd but, with the subsequent rerating of the media filters, will be capable of operating at a rated capacity of 80 mgd. The timing for the SWTF expansion will be examined as part of the Metro Plan update and determined based on need as the City grows and demands increase.

Beneficial Transfers and Exchanges
The City is evaluating future beneficial transfers and exchanges of the City’s USBR water in normal water years when available water supplies exceed demands.

SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PLANNED SOURCES OF WATER
Summaries of the above-discussed existing and planned sources of water are provided in Table G and Table H below.

Table G: Actual Water Supplies
Water Supply 2020
Actual Volume, AFY Water Quality
Groundwater 55,028 Drinking Water
USBR CVP 37,447 Drinking Water
FID Kings River 71,292 Drinking Water
Recycled Water, RWRF 858 Recycled Water
Recycled Water, NFWRF 54 Recycled Water
Total 164,679
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-7 (City of Fresno 2021).

AFY = acre-feet per year
CVP = Central Valley Project
FID = Fresno Irrigation District
NFWRF = North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
RWRF = Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
USBR = United States Bureau of Reclamation
33 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Table H: Projected Water Supplies
Water Supply Reasonably Available Volume, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
USBR CVP 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
FID Kings River 125,030 131,600 131,600 131,600 131,600 Recycled Water,
RWRF 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
Recycled Water,
NFWRF 110 110 110 110 110
Total 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-8 (City of Fresno 2021).

AFY = acre-feet per year
CVP = Central Valley Project
FID = Fresno Irrigation District
NFWRF = North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
RWRF = Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
USBR = United States Bureau of Reclamation
Supply Management
The City currently balances its surface water supplies and groundwater based on minimum production for operation of the SWTFs and minimum groundwater pumping to manage and control contamination plumes and prevent their spread. The minimum operation conditions typically occur in the low-demand winter months, and the City can increase surface water production during peak-demand months when surface water is available. In normal and wet years, the City intends to rely on more surface water supply and recharge raw surface water to replenish the groundwater basin and build storage for dry years. In dry years, when surface water is less available, the City will ramp up well production to meet demands. The City is expected to continue this supply management strategy in the future.

Special Conditions
This section details climate change and future regulatory conditions that impact the City’s supply sources.
34 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Climate Change Effects
Climate models disagree on average annual precipitation projections but agree on other hydrologic metrics relevant to water resources management, including:
• Snowpack declines
• Increased fraction of precipitation on extreme rainfall days • Shorter, sharper rainy season
• Increased evapotranspiration
• Higher frequency of extremely wet and extremely dry years • Higher incidence of an extreme dry year followed by an extreme wet year or vice versa Climate change impacts were evaluated in the North Kings GSP using DWR climate change datasets, which were developed for the California Water Commission’s Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP). The North Kings GSP analyzed WSIP water supply projections and found climate change will have no significant impact on the FID Kings River diversions.

The North Kings GSP estimates the timing of the inflows to water reservoir and surface water supplies is anticipated to shift significantly due to warmer temperatures causing precipitation to arrive as rainfall instead of snowmelt. The warmer temperatures are also predicted to cause the snowmelt to turn to runoff earlier each spring. These climate impacts are estimated in the North Kings GSP to slightly increase inflows to the Kings River (0.6% in 2040 and 0.3% in 2070); however, they are not expected to impact the Kings River diversions significantly, and the timing will have a greater impact on water management, including a possible greater need for additional storage. The North Kings GSP also estimated climate impacts to the San Joaquin River supplies available to the CVP Friant Division Contractors, including the City’s USBR Class I supplies, and found the WSIP dataset estimates a slight reduction in future water supplies. The 2020 UWMP considers water supply during an extreme-dry-year or multi-dry-year scenario, which may occur more often due to climate change.

Regulatory Conditions
The City has existing contracts for its surface water supplies that are not facing any reduction due to forthcoming regulation. The City’s groundwater supply is from an unadjudicated basin and is also considered reliable. The GSA is currently working toward determining a safe yield for the Kings Subbasin, which is the amount of water than can be pumped from the basin over a long-term period without producing undesirable results. The City is an active member of the GSA, working collaboratively to bring the basin into balance while protecting the City’s groundwater supply.

Additionally, forthcoming California regulations for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may impact certain wells within Fresno. The City is currently monitoring and treating 35 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
some groundwater wells for PFAS. These regulations are not expected to impact the City’s ability to use its full groundwater supply.

ENERGY INTENSITY
Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10631.2(a), readily available information regarding energy intensity shall be reported in the 2020 UWMP. For the City, this includes the total energy usage at each production facility, including each well site and the three SWTFs. The electrical usage includes the energy to produce, treat, and pump the water into the distribution system. Because the City’s distribution system includes over 200 groundwater wells, Table I presents the total energy usage, water produced, and average energy intensity for all groundwater wells and for each SWTF following the methodology presented in Appendix O of the DWR 2020 UWMP Guidebook. The energy intensity varies significantly among groundwater wells depending on the depth to the groundwater table, if the well includes treatment beyond disinfection, and other local conditions. The total energy intensity for all production and treatment in the City’s distribution system in 2020 was 384 kilowatt-hours per AF.

Table I: Water System Energy Intensity in 2020
Wells NESWTF SESWTF T-3 SWTF Total
Groundwater 27,667,366 5,845,314 13,416,000 454,470 47,386,150 USBR CVP 56,445 20,724 45,367 875 123,411
FID Kings River 490 282 296 520 384
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-9 (City of Fresno 2021).

CVP = Central Valley Project
FID = Fresno Irrigation District
NESWTF = Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
SESWTF = Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
T-3 SWTF T-3 = Water Storage and Modular Surface Water Treatment Facility USBR = United States Bureau of Reclamation
36 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

WATER SUPPLY
This section discusses projected supplies and demands for a normal year, single dry year, and 5-year consecutive drought. As shown in Table J, the City is projected to have greater than 100,000 AF of available supply after meeting demands in normal years. As shown in Table K, the City’s surface water supplies are reduced in a single dry year, but all potable demands are met and groundwater recharge of raw surface water is reduced. As shown in Table L, the City is projected to meet all demands during a 5-year drought with its existing supplies. Potable demands are unrestricted, and non-potable water used for groundwater recharge is reduced in years 3 and 4 of a 5-year drought.

Table J: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water –
USBR 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Surface Water –
FID 125,030 131,600 131,600 131,600 131,600
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 ,5910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Demand Totals 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Difference 129,826 128,384 124,300 120,124 115,883
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-1 (City of Fresno 2021).

FID = Fresno Irrigation District
USBR = United States Bureau of Reclamation
37 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Table K: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre-feet per year) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water –
USBR 0 0 0 0 0
Surface Water –
FID 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 189,852 159,392 200,862 206,252 211,582
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
Demand 27,588 28,776 29,964 31,152 32,340
Demand Totals 164,092 176,132 184,174 192,228 200,287
Difference 25,760 19,260 16,668 14,024 11,295
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-2 (City of Fresno 2021).

FID = Fresno Irrigation District
USBR = United States Bureau of Reclamation
Table L: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water –
USBR 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Surface Water –
FID 99,725 99,725 99,725 99,725 99,725
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 273,725 279,265 284,735 290,125 295,455
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Demand Totals 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Difference 74,521 66,509 62,425 58,249 54,008
Second Year
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water –
USBR 37,200 37,200 37,200 37,200 37,200
38 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Table L: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Surface Water –
FID 93,426 93,426 93,426 93,426 93,426
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 274,626 280,166 285,636 291,026 296,356
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Demand Totals 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Difference 75,422 67,410 63,326 59,150 54,909
Third Year
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water –
USBR 0 0 0 0 0
Surface Water –
FID 73,568 73,568 73,568 73,568 73,568
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 217,568 223,108 228,578 233,968 239,298
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
Demand 53,763 46,281 43,526 40,677 37,761
Demand Totals 190,267 193,637 197,736 201,753 205,708
Difference 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
Fourth Year
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water –
USBR 0 0 0 0 0
Surface Water –
FID 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
Demand 26,047 18,564 15,810 12,960 10,045
Demand Totals 162,551 165,920 170,020 174,036 177,992
Difference 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
Fifth Year
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
39 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Table L: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Surface Water –
USBR 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
Surface Water –
FID 125,840 125,840 125,840 125,840 125,840
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
Supply Totals 314,840 320,380 325,580 331,240 336,570
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable
Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Demand Totals 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,449
Difference 115,636 107,624 103,540 99,364 95,123
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-3 (City of Fresno 2021).

FID = Fresno Irrigation District
USBR = United States Bureau of Reclamation
40 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS APPLICABLITY
The City's adopted 2020 UWMP contains an overview of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The City’s WSCP is used to provide guidance to the City’s governing body and staff and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. Preparation provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions due to extended drought and catastrophic supply interruptions. The WSCP, applicable to the entire City of Fresno municipal water service area, is fully applicable to the project and protective of the adequacy of the project’s water supply.

As discussed in the 2020 UWMP, the WSCP describes the following:

1. Water Supply Reliability Analysis: Summarizes the City’s water supply analysis and reliability and identifies any key issues that may trigger a shortage condition

2. Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures: Describes the key data inputs, evaluation criteria, and methodology for assessing the system’s reliability for the coming year and the steps to formally declare any water shortage levels and response actions

3. Six Standard Shortage Stages: Establishes water shortage levels to clearly identify and prepare for shortages

4. Shortage Response Actions: Describes the response actions that may be implemented or considered for each stage to reduce gaps between supply and demand as well as minimize social and economic impacts to the community

5. Communication Protocols: Describes communication protocols under each stage to ensure customers, the public, and government agencies are informed of shortage conditions and requirements

6. Compliance and Enforcement: Defines compliance and enforcement actions available to administer demand reductions

7. Legal Authority: Lists the legal documents that grant the City the authority to declare a water shortage and implement and enforce response actions

8. Financial Consequences of WSCP Implementation: Describes the anticipated financial impact of implementing water shortage stages and identifies mitigation strategies to offset financial burdens
41 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

9. Monitoring and Reporting: Summarizes the monitoring and reporting techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of shortage response actions and overall WSCP implementation, with results used to determine if additional shortage response actions should be activated or if efforts are successful and response actions should be reduced

10. WSCP Refinement Procedures: Describes the factors that may trigger updates to the WSCP and outlines how to complete an update

11. Special Water Features Distinctions: Identifies exemptions for ponds, lakes, fountains, pools, and spas, etc.

12. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability: Describes the process for the WSCP adoption, submittal, and availability after each revision As identified in the 2020 UWMP, the 2020 WSCP is included as Appendix J to the 2020 UWMP.
42 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

WATER DEMAND
This section discusses the citywide future estimated water use and estimated water demand associated with the proposed project.

CITYWIDE DEMAND FACTORS FOR WATER USE
The City’s 2020 UWMP estimated future water demands based on land use demand factors using 2018 metered consumption data. These demand factors were applied to the 2020 land use acreage by category to develop the demand projection beginning in 2020. Demand factors for land uses that grow over time and represent new developments were assigned a lower demand factor than the demand factors for existing development. Additionally, demand factors were assumed to slowly reduce over time due to passive conservation, which includes the replacement of older water fixtures and appliances with more efficient types. Table M shows the projected annual water use by land use type for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045.

Table M: Citywide Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water (acre-feet per year) Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single-Family 76,255 80,429 82,934 85,437 87,936
Multi-Family 19,000 20,654 21,737 22,831 23,935
Commercial1 19,052 21,135 22,587 24,041 25,496
Industrial 7,410 9,003 9,922 10,841 11,758
Landscape 4,490 5,035 5,422 5,809 6,196
Groundwater
Recharge2 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Other3 200 200 200 200 200
Losses 10,097 10,900 11,408 11,917 12,426
Total 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Tables 4-6 and 4-7 (City of Fresno 2021).

Notes:
1 Includes industrial/governmental uses.
2 Raw water.
3 Travel meters.

As shown in Table M, overall water demands are projected to increase from 199,204 AFY in 2025 to 241,447 AFY in 2045, an increase of approximately 21 percent. The increase in water use for industrial uses is projected to increase at a faster rate of approximately 59 percent over the same period, from 7,410 AFY in 2025 to 11,758 AFY in 2045. Based on Table 4-3 of the 2020 UWMP, industrial acreage is expected to increase from 4,500 acres in 43 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
2020 to 9,300 acres in 2056, an increase of approximately 107 percent. As discussed above, demand factors for land uses that grow over time and represent new developments were assigned a lower demand factor than the demand factors for existing development.

PROPOSED PROJECT WATER DEMAND
Methodology
The potable demand projections in the 2020 UWMP for normal water use utilize land usebased projections. Under this methodology, existing land use and demand was accounted separately from future land use and demand. This allows different demand factors to be applied to current land use areas and future land use areas. Future land use areas represent future customers and developments that are expected to be more water-efficient than existing land uses and buildings due to the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and use of higher-efficiency appliances and landscapes.

The existing and future land use acreage was sourced from the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database and the City’s General Plan. The existing land use shapefile and associated acreage for each land use classification were used to represent 2020 land use data. Areas not served by the City were excluded from the existing land use shapefile. The future land use shapefile corresponds with the planned land use at buildout as described in the City’s General Plan representing the year 2056. Although the City does not have any plans to serve areas currently served by others within the City limits, all areas within the City’s SOI were assumed to be served by the City by buildout for conservative planning purposes. Table N lists the land use acreage by land use category for the 2020 and buildout 2056 water service areas used in the City’s 2020 UWMP. 44 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\Technical Studies\Water Supply Assessment\2740 West Nielsen Water Supply Assessment - October 2022.docx (10/06/22)
Table N: Existing and Future Water Service Area Acreage Land Use Category
2020 Water Service Area
1,3,4
2056 Water Service Area2
Acres Percent Acres Percent
Single-Family Residential 27,700 47% 40,000 47%
Multifamily Residential 3,700 6% 3,800 5%
Commercial 4,500 8% 8,600 10%
Public Facility 5,600 9% 7,200 9%
Industrial 4,500 8% 9,300 11%
Open Space/Landscape
Irrigation 13,100 22% 11,000 13%
Mixed Use3 0 0% 3,900 5%
Downtown3 0 0% 600 1%
Total 59,100 100% 84,300 100%
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 4-3 (City of Fresno 2021).

Notes:
1 Acreage from City of Fresno GIS Shapefile of Land Uses provided 8/12/20 and reduced to the City’s water service area (excludes Pinedale, Bakman, and California State University, Fresno, as well as unserved areas outside the City limits and SOI). 2 Future land use shapefile provided by the City on 8/12/20 and aligns with the General Plan for buildout in year 2056. The buildout service area acreage listed excludes the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility; land used for road, highways, and railroads; and the north area outside of the SOI.
3 Mixed use and downtown land use categories are not in the existing land use shapefile.

They are described in the General Plan as new designations for redevelopment of existing areas that contain a mix of land uses.
4 Approximately 11,300 acres of non-water-demanding vacant/partially vacant land is excluded from the 2020 water service area acreage.

The land use acreage between 2020 and 2056 was estimated in 5-year increments based on areas planned to be developed by 2030 from the City’s Planning Department, and by linearly interpolating the remainder of the change in acreage for each land use category between 2030 and 2056. Figure 7 shows the existing and projected land use by customer class used to develop the projections.
45 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

Figure 7: Existing and Projected Land Use
Assumptions
Project-specific water demand was calculated using the methodology from the 2020 UWMP, as described above, based on the following assumptions:
• Figure 7 above (Figure 4-3 of the 2020 UWMP) indicates there will be 5,201 acres of industrial uses in Fresno in 2025.
• Table M above (Table 4-6 of the 2020 UWMP) indicates the projected water demand for industrial land uses in 2025 will be 7,410 AFY.

Therefore, it is assumed that industrial land uses, such as the proposed project, will demand approximately 1.42 AFY per acre in 2025.

Proposed Project Water Demand
The total project site is 48.03 acres. Therefore, based on the assumptions identified above, the proposed project is estimated to demand approximately 68.2 AFY. 46 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

APPLICABILITY OF THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The proposed project site is included in the land use area covered by the City’s 2020 UWMP. Figure 8 shows the location of the project site in relation to the water service area boundaries covered by the 2020 UWMP. In addition, Figure 9 shows the proposed project’s designation of Heavy Industrial. As shown in Table 4-3 of the 2020 UWMP, land use acreages and water demand in the 2020 UWMP were based on the City’s General Plan land use designations for 2020 and buildout in 2056. As such, as shown in Figure 9, the acreage associated with the proposed project was assumed Industrial in the 2020 UWMP; therefore, it is assumed that demand for water was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. There is no evidence, in consideration of the calculated project water demand, that such demand exceeds that estimated in the 2020 UWMP. The adequacy of the water supply for the project is thus consistent with the basis of the analysis of the City’s water supply in the adopted 2020 UWMP.
01 0.75 .5 3
Mi
0 3,750 7,500 15,000
US Feet
1:140,000
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
tnomleB evA
Clovis Ave
Fowl
er Ave
iKcM yeln evA
California Ave
nesneJ evA
Chestnut Ave
West Ave
Walnut Av
e
N evA o htr
lartneC evA
Temperance Ave
A nacirem Ave
Elm Ave
W egdirbsetih A A /ev C - 081
Cedar Ave
Ea
st Ave
Peac
h Ave
sdleihS evA
nalhsA evA
wahS evA
B drallu evA
H evA nodnre
N evA ees
S drehpeh evA
remyheB evA
C reppo evA
Cha
teau Fresno Ave
West Lawn Ave
Dickenson Ave
De
wolf Ave
Hig
hand Ave
McCal
l Ave
Del
Rey Ave
Beth
el Ave
Academy Av
e
Jameson Ave
Fresno Yosemite International Airport

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

DRY CREEK
180
168
41 41
99 99
Southeast
Development
Area
Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facilities
City of
Clovis
Project LocaƟon
MILES
0 1.5 3
Legend
Fresno Sphere of InfluenceClovis Sphere of InfluenceFresno City LimitsCounty IslandsNorth AreaSoutheast Development Area Wastewater Reclamation Facility
Streets
Areas Served Water by Others
Bakman Water DistrictMalaga Water DistrictPark Van Ness Mutual WaterDistrictPinedale County Water DistrictCA State University, Fresno Project Site Boundary
SOURCE: Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Figure 3-1 (City of Fresno 2021).I:\SNN2102\G\Fig 8_Proj Site RelaƟon to UWMP Boundaries.ai (7/20/2022) FIGURE 8
2740 West Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project
Project Site in RelaƟon to the 2020 UWMP Water Service Area Boundaries

PROJECT LOCATION

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
SOURCE: City of Fresno, 2022
I:\SNN2102\G\Figure 9_Project Site General Plan Land Use DesignaƟon.ai (7/20/2022) FIGURE 9
2740 West Nielsen Office/Warehouse Project
Project Site General Plan Land Use DesignaƟon
49 SB 610 WATER S UPPLY ASSESSMENT
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
It is concluded that the City of Fresno’s water system has sufficient capacity to supply the proposed 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project and other projected demands within the City’s service area through the year 2045. Therefore, it is recommended that the City of Fresno Water Division approve this assessment and forward the report to the City of Fresno Planning Department for inclusion in the CEQA documentation for the proposed project.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/16/23)

APPENDIX L

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/16/23) This page intentionally left blank

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172, Clovis, California 93611 559.490.1210 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 2023
TO: Jake Kurth, Scannell Properties
FROM: JT Stephens, Principal
SUBJECT: Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum for the 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project
LSA has prepared a technical noise impact analysis memorandum for the proposed 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project (project) in Fresno, Fresno County, California. This technical noise impact analysis memorandum evaluates the potential noise and vibration impacts and noise reduction measures associated with the project. This analysis includes a description of existing regulatory framework and an assessment of project-related construction and operational noise and vibration emissions. Measures to reduce or eliminate significant impacts are discussed.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The currently vacant 48.03-acre project site is at 2740 West Nielsen (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 458-020- 71 and 458-020-72) in the Fresno, in Fresno County, California. The project site is bounded to the north by vacant, undeveloped land, to the east by North Hughes Avenue, to the south by West Nielsen Avenue, and to the east by North Marks Avenue. The project location map is shown as Figure 1 (all figures are provided in Attachment A).

The project would result in the construction of four office/warehouse buildings that would be configured for heavy industrial uses by tenants that have not been identified. The proposed buildings would result in a total gross floor area of 907,780 square feet. The buildings’ exteriors would be up to 44 feet high with an interior height of up to 36 feet and designed with a total of 193 loading dock doors on the north and south sides of the buildings. Building 1 would be 468,760 square feet and would provide 122 loading dock doors, Building 2 would be 248,820 square feet and would provide 45 loading dock doors, Building 3 would be 96,250 square feet and would provide 14 loading dock doors, and Building 4 would be 93,850 square feet and would provide 11 loading dock doors. The project site plan is shown in Figure 2.

As identified above, future tenants have not been identified. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the proposed project would be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week; however, it is possible that future tenants may operate fewer hours than covered in this analysis.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated in two phases taking place over a total 24-month period starting in the third quarter of 2023 and ending in 2025. The first phase would include the construction of Buildings 2, 3, and 4 and would last 12 months. The second phase would include the construction of Building 1 and would last for 12 months. The proposed project would comply with City 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx2) standards, including the City’s current building code, landscape standards, and lighting standards. In addition, the proposed project would be graded similar to other developments throughout Fresno.

Sensitive Receptors and Land Uses in the Project Vicinity Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to noise and vibration. Adjacent parcels consist mostly of residential, light and heavy industrial, cemetery, and vacant, undeveloped uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project include the single-family residences approximately 110 feet south of the project site across West Nielsen Avenue.

BACKGROUND
Characteristics of Sound
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally related to annoyance, while loudness can affect our ability to hear through hearing damage. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave, resulting in the tone’s range from high to low.

Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves, combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound pressure refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be measured precisely with instruments. The project analysis defines the noise environment of the planning area in terms of sound pressure levels and the project’s effect on sensitive land uses.

Measurement of Sound
Sound intensity is measured with the A-weighted decibel scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound, similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies. Decibels, unlike linear units (e.g., inches or pounds), are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve.

For example, 10 decibels (dB) is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 1 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 1 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represents 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 1 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the sound’s loudness. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).

Sound levels generate from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound levels dissipate exponentially with distance from their noise sources. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source (e.g., highway traffic or railroad operations) the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx3) in a hard site environment. Line source sound levels decrease 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the relaxation and sleeping hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term noise impact assessment.

Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale, or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level. The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, the Leq and L50 are approximately the same.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category includes audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 dB and 3 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments.

The last category includes changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear.

Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.

Table A lists definitions of acoustical terms, and Table B shows common sound levels and their sources. 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx4) Table A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit of sound level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in 1 second (i.e., the number of cycles per second).

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. (All sound levels in this report are A-weighted unless reported otherwise.) L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period, respectively.

Equivalent Continuous
Noise Level, Leq
The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.

Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time. It is usually a composite of sound from many sources from many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control (Harris 1991).

Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to sound levels higher than 85 dBA.

Exposure to high sound levels affects the entire system, with prolonged sound exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of sound exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the sound level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of sound is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by a feeling of pain in the ear (i.e., the threshold of pain). A sound level of 160–165 dBA will result in dizziness or a loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less-developed areas.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx5) Table B: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
Source: Compiled by LSA (2016).

Fundamentals of Vibration
Vibration refers to ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernible, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as the motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items sitting on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency rumbling noise.

The rumbling noise is caused by the vibration of walls, floors, and ceilings that radiate sound waves.

Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with both ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx6) areas within approximately 100 feet (ft) from the vibration source, although there are examples of ground-borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground-borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, both construction of the project and the freight train operations could result in ground-borne vibration that may be perceptible and annoying.

Ground-borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path will usually be greater than ground-borne noise.

Ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people and damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train-induced ground-borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile-driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings. Ground-borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). The RMS is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as:

Lv = 20 log10 [V/Vref]
where “Lv” is the vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), “V” is the RMS velocity amplitude, and “Vref” is the reference velocity amplitude, or 1 x 10-6 inches/second (in/sec) used in the United States. Table C illustrates human response to various vibration levels, as described in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual) (2018).

Factors that influence ground-borne vibration and noise include:
• Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, railroad track/roadway surface, railroad track support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source. • Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth. • Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption.

Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx7) Table C: Human Response to Different Levels of Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration Vibration
Velocity Level
Noise Level
Low Human Response
Frequency1
Mid
Frequency2
65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA
Approximate threshold of perception for many humans. Lowfrequency sound is usually inaudible; mid-frequency sound is excessive for quiet sleeping areas.
75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA
Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this level unacceptable. Low-frequency noise is acceptable for sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise is annoying in most quiet occupied areas. 85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA
Vibration is acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Low-frequency noise is unacceptable for sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise is unacceptable even for infrequent events with institutional land uses, such as schools and churches.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). 1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 Hz. 2 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz. dBA = A-weighted decibels
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
Hz = Hertz
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Experience with ground-borne vibration indicates (1) vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff, clay soils than in loose, sandy soils; and (2) shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in ground-borne vibration problems at large distances from a railroad track.

Factors such as layering of the soil and the depth to the water table can have significant effects on the propagation of ground-borne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils.

REGULATORY SETTING
Noise and vibration regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
In 1972, Congress enacted the United States Noise Control Act. This act authorized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels). For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to 70 dBA during a 24-hour period of time. At 55 dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 ft, with no community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may indicate annoyance. The USEPA cautions that these identified levels are guidelines, not standards (USEPA 1974).
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx8) Federal Transit Administration
Vibration standards included in the FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance, as shown in Table C. The criteria presented in Table D account for the variations in project types, which differ widely among projects.

Table D: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis Land Use Max Lv
(VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensitive to vibration.

Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low-power optical microscopes (up to 20×).

Residential Night and
Operating Rooms 72
Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.

Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100×) and other equipment of low sensitivity.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 As measured in 1/3-Octave bands of frequency over the frequency range 8 to 80 Hertz.

FTA = Federal Transit Administration LV = velocity in decibels VdB = vibration velocity decibels Max = maximum
The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table E lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the FTA Manual.

Table E: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate LV (VdB)1
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 98
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = microinches per second
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inch/inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
FTA Manual guidelines show that for potential annoyance thresholds, a level of up to 78 VdB is acceptable during the daytime hours at residential uses while a level of 87 VdB is appropriate for office uses, and a level of 90 VdB is appropriate for workshop uses. To assess damage potential, a vibration level of up to 102 VdB (equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non- 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx9) engineered timber and masonry building, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV).

State Regulations
The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings near noise sources. Referred to as the State Noise Insulation Standard, it requires buildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These requirements are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2 (known as the California Building Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A.

The State has also established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses.

Local Regulations
The following is a summary of the applicable policies included in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code that are related to noise and applicable to the proposed project.

City of Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan (2014) includes a set of policies (detailed below) and programs that form a blueprint for the physical development of the city. The following policies related to noise and applicable to the proposed project are presented in the Noise Element of the General Plan. In addition, the Noise Element sets noise standards for transportation and stationary noise sources as shown in Table F and Table G, below.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx 10) Table F: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources
Noise-Sensitive Land Use1 Outdoor Activity Areas2 Interior Spaces Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq dB2
Residential 65 45 -
Transient Lodging 65 45 -
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 -
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls - - 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 - 45
Office Buildings - - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums - - 45
Source: General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014). 1
Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB = decibels
Ldn = day-night average noise level
Table G: Stationary Noise Sources
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
Source: General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014). 1
The Planning and Development Director, on a case-by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-sensitive, and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures. 2 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus five dB. dB = decibels
dBA = A-weighted decibels
• Policy NS-1-b: Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table F. • Policy NS-1-c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study alternative less noisesensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table F as conditions of permit approval.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx 11) • Policy NS-1-g: Noise mitigation measures which help achieve the noise level targets of this plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Façades with substantial weight and insulation;
• Installation of sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas; • Installation of sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas; • Greater building setbacks and exterior barriers;
• Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends; • Installation of mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

The aforementioned measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.
• Policy NS-1-i: Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial, or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables F and G to determine impacts and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables F and G as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means. Noise mitigation measures may include:
• The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
• Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; • Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; • Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and • Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx 12) • Policy NS-1-j: Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update. • Policy NS-1-m: Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportation-related stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City’s adopted standards for noise-sensitive land uses. • Policy NS-1-o: Sound Wall Guidelines. Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise barriers. Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls, and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area.

City of Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code (2022) establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. The following portions of the Municipal Code are applicable to the proposed project.

SEC. 10‐102. Definitions. (b) Ambient Noise. “Ambient noise” is the all‐encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of 15 minutes, without inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of day at which a comparison with the offending noise is to be made. Where the ambient noise level is less than that designated in this section, the noise level specified in Table H shall be deemed to be the ambient noise level for that location.

Table H: Ambient Noise Levels
District Time Sound Level Decibels
Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Residential 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
Residential 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
Commercial 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60
Commercial 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial anytime 70
Source: Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations) (City of Fresno, 2022).

SEC. 10‐105. Excessive Noise Prohibited. No person shall make, cause, or suffer or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street, alley, or place within the city, any sound or noise 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx 13) which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorized by or in accordance with this article. The provisions of this section shall apply to, but shall be limited to, the control, use, and operation of the following noise sources:
(a) Radios, musical instruments, phonographs, television sets, or other machines or devices used for the amplification, production, or reproduction of sound or the human voice. (b) Animals or fowl creating, generating, or emitting any cry or behavioral sound. (c) Machinery or equipment, such as fans, pumps, air conditioning units, engines, turbines, compressors, generators, motors or similar devices, equipment, or apparatus. (d) Construction equipment or work, including the operation, use or employment of pile drivers, hammers, saws, drills, derricks, hoists, or similar construction equipment or tools.

SEC. 10‐109. Exceptions. The provisions of this article shall not apply to:
(a) Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.
(b) Emergency work.
(c) Any act or acts which are prohibited by any law of the State of California or the United States.

OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the existing noise environment in the project site vicinity. Noise monitoring and traffic noise modeling were used to quantify existing and future noise levels at the project site.

In Fresno, vehicle traffic is the primary source of noise. Other significant local noise sources include airport noise, railroad operations, and stationary source noise.

Existing Noise Level Measurements
To assess existing noise levels, LSA conducted two long-term and four short-term noise measurements at the proposed project site. The long-term noise measurements were recorded on September 28, 2022 and on September 29, 2022. The long-term noise measurements captured data to calculate the hourly Leq and CNEL at each location, which incorporate the nighttime hours. Sources that dominate the existing noise environment include traffic on West Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue, as well as railway activities and nearby aircraft operations. Noise measurement data collected during long-term noise monitoring are summarized in Table I and shown in Figure 3. Noise measurement sheets are provided in Attachment B.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx 14) Table I: Long-Term Noise Level Measurements
Location
Daytime Hours
Noise Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Evening Hours
Noise Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Hours
Noise Levels3
(dBA Leq)
Average Daily
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Average Noise Level
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
(dBA Leq)
Average Noise Level
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
(dBA Leq)
LT-1: West of 2625 W Nielsen Avenue. On
a tree, approximately 40 feet away from W
Neilson centerline

61.0-68.3 56.2-61.4 52.0-66.2 67.6 62.3 59.1
LT-2: North of site, near rail tracks,
approximately 30 feet from track closest to
site.

46.6-66.6 55.8-65.3 50.2-56.4 62.0 56.7 53.3
ST-14: Between second and third tree
north of cemetery entrance.

Approximately 35 feet from N Hughes
Avenue centerline

58.8-66.1 54.0-59.2 49.8-64.0 65.4 60.1 56.9
ST-24: North of Belmont Avenue.

Approximately 40 feet away from
centerline. By 2560 Belmont Avenue
entrance (AAA Welding).

61.6-68.9 56.8-62.0 52.6-66.8 68.2 62.9 59.7
ST-34: West of N Marks Avenue, south of
overpass entrance, by power pole.

Approximately 50 feet away from Marks
Ave. centerline

62.8-70.1 58.0-63.2 53.8-68.0 69.4 64.1 60.9
ST-44: South of Nielsen Avenue,
approximately 40 feet away from
centerline. East of 2307 W Nielsen Ave
entrance.

61.5-68.8 56.7-61.9 52.5-66.7 68.1 62.8 59.6
Source: Compiled by LSA. (October 2022). 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 4 Hourly and daily noise levels at short-term noise monitoring locations were estimated by the noise profile of nearby long-term measurements dBA = A-weighted decibels
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
15 Existing Traffic Noise
The guidelines included in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) were used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values.

Traffic volumes were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2022). A specific breakdown of the vehicle percentages based on type and time of day is provided in Attachment C. Table J provides the existing traffic noise levels in the project vicinity. These traffic noise levels are representative of a worst-case scenario that assumes a flat terrain and no shielding between the traffic and the noise contours.

Airport Operations
There are currently three airports within the City of Fresno: Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Fresno‐Chandler Executive Airport, and Sierra Sky Park Airport. Commercial jet aircraft operations are limited to Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The Air National Guard is also stationed there and Table J: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without Project
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline to
70 dBA CNEL
(feet)
Centerline to
65 dBA CNEL
(feet)
Centerline to
60 dBA CNEL
(feet)
CNEL (dBA) 50 feet
from Centerline of
Outermost Lane
Marks Avenue between
Belmont Avenue and
Nielsen Avenue
10,190 158 486 1,532 72.8
Marks Avenue between
Nielsen Avenue and Ray
Johnson Drive
11,554 178 551 1,737 73.3
Marks Avenue between
Ray Johnson Drive and SR180 Westbound Ramps12,019 185 573 1,807 73.5 Belmont Avenue between
Marks Avenue and Hughes
Avenue
7,240 92 280 881 71.0
Nielsen Avenue between
Marks Avenue and Hughes
Avenue
1,614 < 50 71 199 64.0
Hughes Avenue between
Nielsen Avenue and
Belmont Avenue
2,604 < 50 105 318 66.3
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2022).

Notes: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.

ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
SR- = State Route
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
16 operates military jets and other aircraft. Private and commercial operations with smaller aircraft use Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport, while only small private aircraft use Sierra Sky Park Airport.

The nearest airports to the project site include Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located 0.8 mile from the project site, the Sierra Sky Airport, 6.7 miles from the project site, and Fresno International Airport, 7.1 miles from the project site. Each of these airports is included in the Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which guides approximate compatible land uses. The City of Fresno General Plan, other City land use plans, and all City land use decisions must be compatible with the adopted ALUCP. The ALUCP includes CNEL noise contours based on projected airport and aircraft operations. The project site is not within an ALUCP.

Railroad Operations
The two major rail lines that traverse the city are the Union Pacific Railroad line, which is generally runs along State Route (SR) 99, and the BNSF Railway, which diverges from SR‐99 in the southwest and travels through downtown (behind City Hall) to the northwest. The Union Pacific line is generally within a heavy commercial and industrial corridor, although residential uses occur in the vicinity of the line north of Shaw Avenue. The Union Pacific line limits its use to only freight traffic. South of downtown, BNSF Railway is bounded by industrial uses, while north of downtown, the line is generally within a residential area. The BNSF Railway carries both freight and passenger traffic (Amtrak).

The closest rail line to the project site is 315 feet north of the project site.

Stationary Noise Sources
Stationary noise sources can also have an effect on the population, and unlike mobile, transportation‐ related noise sources, these sources generally have a more permanent and consistent impact on people. These stationary noise sources involve a wide spectrum of uses and activities, including various industrial uses, commercial operations, agricultural production, school playgrounds, high school football games, on-site heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps.

Even with incorporation of the best available noise control technology, noise emanating from industrial uses can be substantial and exceed local noise standards. These noise sources can be continuous and may contain tonal components that may be annoying to nearby receptors. Although industrial uses in Fresno are typically in industrial districts near freeways and commercial uses and away from residences and other sensitive noise receptors, noise sources associated with commercial uses such as automotive repair facilities, recycling centers, and loading docks may occur in the vicinity of residential uses.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors.

Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone.

The duration of noise impacts generally would be from 1 day to several days, depending on the phase 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
17 of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below.

Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table K lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor, taken from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006).

Table K: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor
(%)
Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
at 50 Feet1
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (Federal Highway Administration 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table K, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
18 In addition to the reference maximum noise level, the usage factor provided in Table K is used to calculate the hourly noise level impact for each piece of equipment based on the following equation:


 

 += − 50 log20.).log(10..)( D
eq FULEequipL
where: Leq (equip) = Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a specified time period
E.L. = noise emission level of the particular piece of equipment at a reference distance of 50 ft
U.F. = usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified period of time
D = distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Using the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously:

𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ) = 10 ∗ log10 ��10
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
10 1
�
Using the equations from the methodology above, the reference information in Table K, and the construction equipment list provided, the composite noise level of the two loudest pieces of equipment for each construction phase was calculated. The project construction composite noise levels at a distance of 50 ft for would range from 74 dBA Leq to 84 dBA Leq, with the highest noise levels occurring during the grading phase.

Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:

𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑋𝑋) = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑎𝑎 50 𝑓𝑓 ) − 20 ∗ lo g10 � 𝑋𝑋
50�
In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA, while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA.

To determine the applicable distance, the acoustical average distance is utilized. The acoustical average distance is used to represent noise sources that are mobile or distributed over an area. The average acoustical distance is calculated by multiplying the shortest distance between the receiver and the noise source area by the farthest distance, and then taking the square root of the product. 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
19 While construction noise will vary, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest off-site sensitive residential use to the south would reach an average noise level of 64 dBA Leq during daytime hours. While construction-related, short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than quieter daytime ambient noise levels in the project area under existing conditions, the construction noise impacts would be approximately 1.7 dBA greater than the existing average daytime noise level of 64.7 dBA Leq during the allowable hour of construction. When logarithmically combined with the existing average ambient noise level, the total noise level would be 66.2 dBA Leq resulting in an increase of 3.9 dBA Leq. Because the increase would be less than 5 dBA, construction noise would be considered less than significant.

Consistent with the applicable noise provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code, construction work would only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction work would take place on Sundays.

Although the project’s potential construction-related noise level increase would be less than 5 dBA, project construction noise would result in a potentially significant impact at the nearest off-site sensitive residential use. As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards, which would reduce the potential impacts associated with construction equipment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires the project to designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable
measures warranted to correct the problem.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity during construction.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
20 Short-Term Construction Vibration Impacts
This construction vibration impact analysis assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec). This is because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best for characterizing potential for damage.

Table L shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 ft from the construction vibration source. As shown in Table L, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (expected to be used for this project) generate 0.089 PPV in/sec or 87 VdB of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the FTA Manual. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project construction boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project setback line).

The formulae for vibration transmission are provided below, and Table M, provides a summary of offsite construction vibration levels.

LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) – 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
Table L: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer2 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks2 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. 2 Equipment shown in bold is expected to be used on site. µin/sec = microinches per second
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inch/inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
21 Table M: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet) 2 Vibration Level (PPV) Residential Uses (South)

0.089
110 0.010
Industrial Uses (North) 30 0.068
Industrial Uses / Cemetery (East) 120 0.009
Industrial Uses (West) 300 0.002
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The reference distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures
ft = foot/feet
in/sec = inch/inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
Based on the information provided in Table M, vibration levels are expected to approach 0.068 PPV in/sec at the surrounding structures and would be below the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage threshold.

Based on the information provided in Table N, vibration levels are expected to approach 85 VdB at the closest industrial uses north of the project site and 68 VdB at the closest residential use to the south, which are below the 90 VdB and 78 VdB annoyance threshold for workshop or industrial types uses and for daytime residential uses, respectively.

Table N: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet) 2 Vibration Level(VdB) Residential Uses (South)
87 110 68
Industrial Uses (North) 30 85
Industrial Uses / Cemetery (East) 120 67
Industrial Uses (West) 300 55
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses
ft = foot/feet
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Because construction activities are regulated by the City’s Code of Ordinance that states temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities are not allowed between the 7:00 p.m. on one day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day, vibration impacts would not occur during the more sensitive nighttime hours.

Other building structures surrounding the project site are farther away and would experience further reduced vibration. Therefore, no construction vibration impacts would occur. 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
22 Long Term Noise Impacts
Traffic Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receivers
The guidelines included in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) were used to evaluate highway traffic-related noise conditions along roadway segments in the project vicinity. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. Table O provides the traffic noise levels for the existing with and without project, and opening year with and without project scenarios. These noise levels represent the worstcase scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn.

The without and with project scenario traffic volumes were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2021).

Table O shows that the increase in project-related traffic noise would be no greater than 2.1 dBA.

Noise level increases less than 3.0 dBA are not considered perceptible to most people in an outdoor environment. Because this is also consistent with General Plan Policy NS-1-j: Significance Threshold which states that an increase of 3 dBA CNEL or more is considered significant, traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant. 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx) 23 Table O: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project Roadway Segment
Existing Existing With Project Opening Year Opening Year with Project Year 2035 Year 2035 With Project ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Existing
Conditions
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Near-Term
Conditions
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of Nearest
Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 feet from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Year 2035
Conditions
Marks Avenue between
Belmont Avenue and
Nielsen Avenue
10,190 72.8 11,228 73.9 1.1 10,938 73.1 11,976 74.1 1.0 11,651 73.4 12,689 74.4 1.0 Marks Avenue between
Nielsen Avenue and Ray
Johnson Drive
11,554 73.3 12,146 74.2 0.9 12,408 73.6 13,000 74.5 0.9 13,244 73.9 13,836 74.8 0.9 Marks Avenue between Ray
Johnson Drive and SR-180
Westbound Ramps
12,019 73.5 12,611 74.4 0.9 12,933 73.8 13,525 74.7 0.9 13,706 74.1 14,298 74.9 0.8 Belmont Avenue between
Marks Avenue and Hughes
Avenue
7,240 71.0 7,550 71.8 0.8 7,905 71.3 8,215 72.1 0.8 8,846 71.8 9,156 72.6 0.8 Nielsen Avenue between
Marks Avenue and Hughes
Avenue
1,614 64.0 2,230 66.1 2.1 1,767 64.4 2,383 66.4 2.0 1,772 64.4 2,388 66.4 2.0 Hughes Avenue between
Nielsen Avenue and
Belmont Avenue
2,604 66.3 3,060 67.6 1.3 2,796 66.6 3,252 67.9 1.3 3,531 67.6 3,987 68.8 1.2 Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2022).

Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.

Shaded cells indicate roadway segments adjacent to the project site.

ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL= Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
SR = State Route
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
24 Stationary Operational Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receivers Noise impacts associated with the long-term operation of the project must comply with the noise standards specified in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code, as described above. Adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary-source noise impacts from the proposed HVAC equipment, truck deliveries, and loading and unloading activities. The potential noise impacts to off-site sensitive land uses from the proposed operations are discussed below. To provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that operations would occur equally during all hours of the day and that half the 192 loading docks would be active at all times. Additionally, the analysis assumed that within any given hour, 48 heavy trucks would maneuver to park near or back into one of the proposed trailer parking stalls. HVAC equipment is expected to run continuously for the duration of a 24-hour period. To determine the future noise impacts from project operations to the noise sensitive uses, the 3-D noise model, SoundPLAN, was used for the evaluation. The model incorporates the site topography as well as the shielding from the proposed building on-site. The model output, which includes a graphic representation of the operational noise impacts is presented in Attachment D.

Results from the model analysis for each of the anticipated stationary sources are summarized below.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment. it is estimated that the project would have four rooftop HVAC units on each of the proposed buildings to provide ventilation to the proposed office and warehouse spaces. The analysis assumes that the HVAC equipment would operate 24 hours per day and would generate sound power levels (SPL) of up to 87 dBA SPL or 72 dBA Leq at 5 feet, based on manufacturer data (Trane).

Truck Deliveries and Truck Loading and Unloading Activities. Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and unloading activities, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 ft based on measurements taken by LSA (Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center [LSA 2016]). Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers would be parked within the loading docks. During this process, noise would be associated with the truck engine, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock. These noise sources would occur for a short period of time (less than 5 minutes). After a truck enters the loading dock, the doors would be closed, and the remainder of the truck loading activities would be enclosed and therefore much less perceptible. To present a conservative assessment, the model analysis assumes that unloading activities would occur at half of the 192 docks simultaneously for a period of more than 30 minutes in a given hour. Maximum noise levels that occur during the docking process were measured to be 86 dBA Lmax at a distance of 20 feet.

Tables P shows the combined hourly noise levels generated by the proposed project at the closest offsite land uses. The project-related hourly noise level impacts would be 58.2 dBA Leq at the outdoor activity area of the residence south of Building 1. When propagated to the outdoor activity area of the residential property south of Building 1, the average daytime noise level is 56.8 dBA Leq and the average nighttime noise level is 53.6 dBA Leq. As specified in the City’s Noise Element, if existing ambient noise level exceed the City’s noise standards, a project impact would occur when project related noise levels cause a 5 dBA or more increase. When compared to existing noise levels, project operations would not create an impact during daytime hours, but would generate an increase of greater than 5 dBA during nighttime hours, resulting in a potentially significant impact. 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
25 Table P: Hourly Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing
Daytime
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Existing
Nighttime
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA
Leq)
Daytime
Noise
Level
Increase
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise Level
Increase
(dBA Leq)
Potential
Operational Noise
Impact?
(Daytime /
Nighttime)1
Residential South 56.8 53.6 58.2 3.8 5.9 No / Yes
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
1 Because ambient noise levels exceed the City of Fresno’s stationary noise criteria, a potential operational noise impact would occur if operational noise would increase ambient noise by 5 dBA or more. dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent noise level
Table Q shows the modeled maximum exterior noise levels. The maximum noise levels generated would approach 66.5 dBA Lmax at the surrounding sensitive receptors. This noise level would be below the City’s exterior maximum daytime noise standard of 70 dBA Lmax but would exceed the 60 dBA Lmax for nighttime hours. Similar to the hourly noise impacts, project operations would not generate a significant impact related to maximum noise levels during daytime hours but would generate a significant impact during nighttime hours.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce potential impacts related to loading dock and delivery noise by prohibiting loading dock activities at the loading dock doors and trailer parking activities south of Building 1 during nighttime hours. Loading dock and parking activities at all other locations would be shielded by the proposed buildings and would not exceed the City’s nighttime noise standards.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 All loading dock activities shall be prohibited at the loading dock doors on the south end of Building 1 during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) or once operational, the project proponent shall provide documentation to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department that demonstrates that nighttime loading dock activities would comply with the noise level specifications of the City’s Municipal Code.

Table Q: Maximum Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Project
Maximum
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
Daytime
Maximum Noise
Level Standard
(dBA Lmax)
Nighttime
Maximum Noise
Level Standard
(dBA Lmax)
Potential Operational
Noise Impact?
(Daytime / Nighttime)1
Residential South 66.5 70 60 No / Yes
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Lmax = maximum noise level
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
26 With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient stationary source noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

Long-Term Vibration Impacts
Once operational, the proposed project would not generate vibration levels related to on-site operations. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of onroad vehicles provide vibration isolation. Vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant.

CONCLUSION
Project-related impacts associated with short-term construction vibration, long-term off-site traffic increases, and long-term vibration impacts would be less than significant. The following presents a summary of the potentially significant impacts and associated mitigation measures for short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts.

Short-term Construction Noise Impacts
As stated above, the closest off-site sensitive receptors may be subject to short-term construction noise reaching 81 dBA Lmax during construction. However, construction equipment would operate at various locations within the 48.03-acre project site and would only generate maximum noise levels when operations take place closest to the receptor. Nevertheless, to ensure that the project’s potential construction-related noise impacts are less than significant, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires the project to equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards, which would reduce the potential impacts associated with construction equipment. Additionally, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires the project to designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. These measures would ensure that the project’s potential construction-related noise impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine 2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
27 the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable
measures warranted to correct the problem.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

Long-term Operational Noise Impacts
Noise impacts associated with the long-term operation of the project must comply with the noise standards specified in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, as described above.

As specified in the City’s Noise Element, if existing ambient noise level exceed the City’s noise standards, a project impact would occur when project-related noise levels cause a 5 dBA or more increase. When compared to existing hourly noise levels, project operations would not create an impact during daytime hours, but would generate an increase of greater than 5 dBA during nighttime hours, resulting in a significant impact. Similar to the hourly noise impacts, project operations would not generate a significant maximum noise level impact during daytime hours but would generate a significant impact during nighttime hours.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce potential impacts related to loading dock and delivery noise by prohibiting loading dock activities at the loading dock doors and trailer parking activities south of Building 1 during the nighttime hours. Loading dock and parking activities at all other locations would be shielded by the proposed buildings and would not exceed the City’s nighttime noise standards.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 All loading dock activities shall be prohibited at the loading dock doors on the south end of Building 1 during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) or once operational, the project proponent would provide documentation to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department that demonstrates that nighttime loading dock activities would comply with the noise level specifications of the City’s Municipal Code.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant impact associated with the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient stationary source noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

REFERENCES
City of Fresno. 2014. General Plan Noise Element. December. _____. 2022. Municipal Code. Section 10-101.
2/2/23 (P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx)
28 Harris, Cyril M., ed. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Third Edition.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

January. Washington, D.C.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Office of Planning and Environment. Report No. 0123. September.

LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2016. Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center.
_____. 2021. 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study. December.

Trane. Fan Performance - Product Specifications RT-PRC023AU-EN.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

Attachments: A: Figures 1-3
B: Noise Measurement Sheets
C: FHWA Traffic Noise Model Printouts
D: Soundplan Noise Model Printouts

NOISE I MPACT A NALYSIS MEMORANDUM
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx (02/02/23)

ATTACHMENT A
FIGURES 1–3
SOURCE: Esri Topographic Map (2021)
I:\SNN2102\GIS\MXD\Project_Location.mxd (6/7/2021)
FIGURE 1
2740 West Nielsen Avenue Office/Warehouse Project
Regional Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
LEGEND
Project Location
Proposed Parcels
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Ã43
Ã168
Ã180
Ã41
Ã99
Project
Location
Project Vicinity
FEET
0 150 300
SOURCE: HPA Architecture, Inc., 2021I:\SNN2102\G\Site_Plan.ai (10/6/2022) FIGURE 2
2740 West Nielsen Avenue Warehouse
Site Plan
W Belmont Ave
W Dudley Ave
Railroad Tracks
W Franklin Ave
W Neilsen Ave
Wagon Wheel Rd
N Marks Ave
N Hughes Ave
S Roeding Dr
S H ughes
A ve
Lone Pine Rd
W Belmont Ave
W Dudley Ave
Railroad Tracks
W Franklin Ave
W Neilsen Ave
Wagon Wheel Rd
N Marks Ave
N Hughes Ave
S Roeding Dr
S
Hughes Ave
Lone Pine Rd

MOUNTAIN VIEW

CEMETARY

BELMONT

MEMORIAL
PARK
180
SOURCES: Google Earth, 2019
I:\SNN2102\G\Noise_Monitor_Locs.ai (10/6/2022)
FIGURE 3
2740 West Nielsen Avenue Warehouse
Noise Monitoring LocaƟons FEET
0 500 1000
LEGEND
- Project Site Boundary
- Short-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟon
LT-1 - Long-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟon
ST-1
LT-1
ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
ST-4
LT-2
LT-1
ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
ST-4
LT-2

NOISE I MPACT A NALYSIS MEMORANDUM
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx (02/02/23)

ATTACHMENT B

NOISE MEASUREMENT SHEETS
Noise Measurement Survey – 24 HR
Project Number: SNN2101 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab
Project Name: 2740 West Nielson Equipment: Spark 706RC (SN:903) Site Number: LT-1 Date: 9/28/2022 Time: From 1:00 p.m. To 1:00 p.m.

Site Location: West of 2625 W Nielson Avenue. On a tree, approximately 40 ft away from W Neilson centerline
Primary Noise Sources: Regular traffic noise on W Nielson Ave.

Occasional aircraft noise
Occasional dog barking
Comments:

Photo:

Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-1 Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA)
Leq Lmax Lmin
1:00 PM 9/28/22 66.3 86.6 42.9
2:00 PM 9/28/22 66.2 86.8 43.2
3:00 PM 9/28/22 66.5 89.6 45.6
4:00 PM 9/28/22 66.8 87.4 47.1
5:00 PM 9/28/22 64.5 85.7 47.4
6:00 PM 9/28/22 61.0 81.3 46.7
7:00 PM 9/28/22 61.4 85.0 46.7
8:00 PM 9/28/22 59.0 81.9 44.8
9:00 PM 9/28/22 56.2 79.8 45.3
10:00 PM 9/28/22 55.2 78.9 44.1
11:00 PM 9/28/22 53.8 79.7 43.7
12:00 AM 9/29/22 55.9 82.3 43.3
1:00 AM 9/29/22 54.0 81.2 43.1
2:00 AM 9/29/22 52.0 75.5 41.1
3:00 AM 9/29/22 55.5 80.8 42.0
4:00 AM 9/29/22 57.1 78.9 44.9
5:00 AM 9/29/22 63.2 83.4 49.4
6:00 AM 9/29/22 66.2 84.4 51.3
7:00 AM 9/29/22 67.7 91.4 51.5
8:00 AM 9/29/22 68.3 87.8 46.4
9:00 AM 9/29/22 64.4 88.0 43.9
10:00 AM 9/29/22 63.7 86.7 43.2
11:00 AM 9/29/22 64.2 84.8 42.0
12:00 PM 9/29/22 65.0 84.4 43.4
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2022).
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin = minimum measured sound level

30.0 33.0

36.0 39.0

42.0 45.0

48.0 51.0

54.0 57.0

60.0 63.0

66.0 69.0

72.0 75.0

78.0 81.0

84.0 87.0

90.0 93.0
1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM 10:00 PM11:00 PM
12:00 AM
1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM 10:00 AM11:00 AM
12:00 PM
Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Time of Day
Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement
LT-1
Leq
Lmax
Lmin
Noise Measurement Survey – 24 HR
Project Number: SNN2101 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab
Project Name: 2740 West Nielson Equipment: Spark 706RC (SN:904) Site Number: LT-2 Date: 9/28/2022 Time: From 2:00 p.m. To 2:00 p.m.

Site Location: North of site, near rail tracks, approximately 30 feet from track closest to site .

On a blue painted pole
Primary Noise Sources: Rail activity (idling, moving into adjacent site) Occasional aircraft
Faint road traffic
Comments:

Photo:

Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-2 Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA)
Leq Lmax Lmin
2:00 PM 9/28/22 52.2 81.0 41.3
3:00 PM 9/28/22 52.5 71.3 42.9
4:00 PM 9/28/22 52.6 70.7 43.8
5:00 PM 9/28/22 54.2 72.7 45.2
6:00 PM 9/28/22 52.7 74.7 44.7
7:00 PM 9/28/22 63.3 87.3 46.4
8:00 PM 9/28/22 60.9 92.4 46.8
9:00 PM 9/28/22 55.8 72.1 47.3
10:00 PM 9/28/22 53.0 68.9 46.3
11:00 PM 9/28/22 51.1 69.1 45.3
12:00 AM 9/29/22 50.2 60.6 45.6
1:00 AM 9/29/22 52.4 70.8 45.2
2:00 AM 9/29/22 50.5 69.9 42.1
3:00 AM 9/29/22 50.4 68.1 44.5
4:00 AM 9/29/22 53.1 69.4 46.4
5:00 AM 9/29/22 55.5 73.0 50.8
6:00 AM 9/29/22 56.4 73.8 51.4
7:00 AM 9/29/22 56.4 74.8 52.2
8:00 AM 9/29/22 66.8 94.6 45.8
9:00 AM 9/29/22 55.4 74.9 43.5
10:00 AM 9/29/22 46.6 62.7 42.3
11:00 AM 9/29/22 52.8 78.4 42.3
12:00 PM 9/29/22 55.4 73.1 42.4
1:00 PM 9/29/22 57.4 80.0 43.2
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2022).
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin = minimum measured sound level

35.0 38.0

41.0 44.0

47.0 50.0

53.0 56.0

59.0 62.0

65.0 68.0

71.0 74.0

77.0 80.0

83.0 86.0

89.0 92.0

95.0 2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM 10:00 PM11:00 PM
12:00 AM
1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM 10:00 AM11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Time of Day
Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement
LT-2
Leq
Lmax
Lmin
Noise Measurement Survey
Project Number: SNN2101 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab
Project Name: 2740 West Nielson Equipment: Larson Davis LxT Site Number: ST-1 Date: 9/28/2022 Time: From 1:30 p.m. To 1:50 p.m.

Site Location: Between 2nd and 3rd tree north of cemetery entrance. Approximately 35 feet away from N Hughes centerline
Primary Noise Sources: traffic noise on N Hughes Ave
Rail crossing gate at 1:35 pm w/ train passby
Faint operations noise from adjacent site (forklift)
Measurement Results
Atmospheric Conditions:

Comments: File # 1

dBA
Leq 63.5
Lmax 77.6
Lmin 43.1
Lpeak 95.4
L2 72.0
L8 69.0
L25 63.6
L50 57.4
SEL
Maximum Wind Velocity (mph) 3.6
Average Wind Velocity (mph) 2.3
Temperature (F) 92
Relative Humidity (%) 30
Comments:

Location Photo:

Noise Measurement Survey
Project Number: SNN2101 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab
Project Name: 2740 West Nielson Equipment: Larson Davis LxT Site Number: ST-2 Date: 9/28/2022 Time: From 1:56 p.m. To 2:16 p.m.

Site Location: North of Belmont Avenue. Approximately 40 feet away from centerline.

By 2560 Belmont avenue entrance (AAA Welding)
Primary Noise Sources: traffic noise on Belmont Avenue
Occasional aircraft
Measurement Results
Atmospheric Conditions:

Comments: File # 2

dBA
Leq 66.7
Lmax 80.2
Lmin 45.6
Lpeak 98.0
L2 75.3
L8 71.9
L25 67.1
L50 60.7
SEL
Maximum Wind Velocity (mph) 3.6
Average Wind Velocity (mph) 2.3
Temperature (F) 92
Relative Humidity (%) 30
Comments:

Location Photo:

Noise Measurement Survey
Project Number: SNN2101 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab
Project Name: 2740 West Nielson Equipment: Larson Davis LxT Site Number: ST-3 Date: 9/28/2022 Time: From 2:25 p.m. To 2:45 p.m.

Site Location: West of N Marks Avenue, south of overpass entrance, by powerline pole.

Approximately 50 feet away from Marks Ave. centerline
Primary Noise Sources: traffic noise on Marks
Faint operational noise from adjacent site, trucks leaving/entering site.

Measurement Results
Atmospheric Conditions:

Comments: File # 3

dBA
Leq 68.9
Lmax 83.9
Lmin 43.3
Lpeak 98.6
L2 77.2
L8 73.9
L25 69.0
L50 63.8
SEL
Maximum Wind Velocity (mph) 3.6
Average Wind Velocity (mph) 2.3
Temperature (F) 92
Relative Humidity (%) 30
Comments:

Location Photo:

Noise Measurement Survey
Project Number: SNN2101 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab
Project Name: 2740 West Nielson Equipment: Larson Davis LxT Site Number: ST-4 Date: 9/28/2022 Time: From 2:50 p.m. To 3:10 p.m.

Site Location: South of Nielson Avenue, approximately 40 feet away from centerline. East of 2307 W Nielson Ave entrance.

Primary Noise Sources: traffic noise on Nielson
Occasional aircraft
Measurement Results
Atmospheric Conditions:

Comments: File # 4
Generally quiet without traffic

dBA
Leq 66.7
Lmax 80.2
Lmin 45.6
Lpeak 98.0
L2 75.3
L8 71.9
L25 67.1
L50 60.7
SEL
Maximum Wind Velocity (mph) 3.6
Average Wind Velocity (mph) 2.3
Temperature (F) 92
Relative Humidity (%) 30
Comments:

Location Photo:

NOISE I MPACT A NALYSIS MEMORANDUM
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx (02/02/23)

ATTACHMENT C

FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS
TABLE Existing -01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Belmont Avenue and Nielson Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10190 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

8.25 1.11 1.67
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 40 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 72.79

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
158.3 486.1 1532.3 4843.5
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing -02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11554 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
178.3 550.7 1737.2 5491.8
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing -03

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Ray Johnson Drive and SR-180 Westbound Ramps
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12019 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
185.1 572.8 1807.1 5712.8
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing -04

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Belmont Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 7240 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

8.25 1.11 1.67
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 25 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 70.96

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

91.6 279.7 881.2 2785.5
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing -05

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Nielson Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1614 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

8.25 1.11 1.67
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 35 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 64.04

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 71.2 199.2 621.2
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing -06

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hughes Avenue between Nielson Avenue and Belmont Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing
______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2604 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

8.25 1.11 1.67
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.31

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 104.5 318.1 1001.7
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing - With Project-01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Belmont Avenue and Nielson Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11228 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

6.82 1.66 2.06
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 40 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 73.85

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
199.7 619.9 1956.4 6184.9
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing - With Project-02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12146 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
215.4 670.3 2116.2 6690.5
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing - With Project-03

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Ray Johnson Drive and SR-180 Westbound Ramps
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12611 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
223.3 695.9 2197.2 6946.6
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing - With Project-04

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Belmont Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 7550 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

6.82 1.66 2.06
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 25 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 71.77

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
109.2 337.2 1063.6 3362.3
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing - With Project-05

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Nielson Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2230 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

6.82 1.66 2.06
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 35 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 66.08

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 105.2 315.6 992.5
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Existing - With Project-06

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hughes Avenue between Nielson Avenue and Belmont Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Existing - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3060 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

6.82 1.66 2.06
ACTIVE HALF-WIDTH (FT): 30 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
______________________________________________________________________ * * CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS * *
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 67.64

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 139.5 431.8 1362.3
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - No Project-01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Belmont Avenue and Nielson Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 10938 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
169.2 521.5 1644.7 5199.1
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - No Project-02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12408 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
190.8 591.2 1865.6 5897.7
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - No Project-03

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Ray Johnson Drive and SR-180 Westbound Ramps
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12933 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
198.5 616.1 1944.5 6147.2
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - No Project-04

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Belmont Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 7905 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

99.4 305.2 962.1 3041.3
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - No Project-05

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Nielson Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1767 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 76.4 217.6 679.9
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - No Project-06

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hughes Avenue between Nielson Avenue and Belmont Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2796 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 111.6 341.3 1075.5
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - With Project-01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Belmont Avenue and Nielson Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11976 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
212.5 661.0 2086.6 6596.8
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - With Project-02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13000 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
230.0 717.3 2265.0 7160.9
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - With Project-03

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Ray Johnson Drive and SR-180 Westbound Ramps
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13525 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
239.0 746.2 2356.4 7450.0
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - With Project-04

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Belmont Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8215 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
118.4 366.7 1157.2 3658.4
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - With Project-05

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Nielson Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2383 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 111.6 337.0 1060.5
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Opening Year - With Project-06

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hughes Avenue between Nielson Avenue and Belmont Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Opening Year - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3252 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 147.8 458.7 1447.7
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - No Project-01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Belmont Avenue and Nielson Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 11651 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
179.7 555.3 1751.8 5537.9
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - No Project-02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13244 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
203.1 630.9 1991.2 6295.0
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - No Project-03

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Ray Johnson Drive and SR-180 Westbound Ramps
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13706 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
209.9 652.8 2060.6 6514.6
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - No Project-04

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Belmont Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 8846 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
110.5 341.3 1076.6 3403.3
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - No Project-05

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Nielson Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 1772 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 76.6 218.2 681.8
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - No Project-06

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hughes Avenue between Nielson Avenue and Belmont Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - No Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3531 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

58.45 7.80 11.70

M-TRUCKS

8.24 1.11 1.67

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 139.1 430.4 1358.0
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - With Project-01

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Belmont Avenue and Nielson Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 12689 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
224.7 700.2 2210.8 6989.6
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - With Project-02

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 13836 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
244.4 763.3 2410.6 7621.3
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - With Project-03

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Marks Avenue between Ray Johnson Drive and SR-180 Westbound Ramps
NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 14298 SPEED (MPH): 45 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
252.3 788.7 2491.1 7875.8
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - With Project-04

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Belmont Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 9156 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
131.4 408.6 1289.7 4077.4
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - With Project-05

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Nielson Avenue between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 2388 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

0.0 111.8 337.7 1062.7
______________________________________________________________________ TABLE Year 2035 - With Project-06

FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/07/2022
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Hughes Avenue between Nielson Avenue and Belmont Avenue NOTES: 2740 West Nielson Warehouse Project - Year 2035 - With Project ______________________________________________________________________ * * ASSUMPTIONS * *
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 3987 SPEED (MPH): 40 GRADE: .5

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES

DAY EVENING NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS

49.84 13.18 16.00

M-TRUCKS

6.77 1.61 2.06

H-TRUCKS

DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------

63.6 180.0 561.9 1774.6
______________________________________________________________________

NOISE I MPACT A NALYSIS MEMORANDUM
OCTOBER 2022
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screencheck\Appendices\L Noise Impact Analysis Memorandum\Appendix L 2740 West Nielsen Noise Memo.docx (02/02/23)

ATTACHMENT D

SOUNDPLAN NOISE MODEL PRINTOUTS
2740 W Nielsen
Project No. SNN2102
Project Operational Noise Levels
Hourly Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
<= 49.0

49.0< <= 51.0

51.0< <= 53.0

53.0< <= 55.0

55.0< <= 57.0

57.0< <= 59.0

59.0< <= 61.0

61.0< <= 63.0

63.0< <= 65.0

65.0< <= 67.0

67.0< <= 69.0

69.0<
Scale
0 50 100 200 300 400
feet
Signs and symbols
Point source
Main building
60 dBA Leq
57 dBA Leq
C:\Users\JStephens\OneDrive - LSA Associates\DESKTOP\SOUNDPLAN\SNN2102 - 2740 W Nielsen\Ops.sgs - last edit 10/12/2022 2740 W Nielsen
Project No. SNN2102
Project Operational Noise Levels - Max
Max Noise
Level (dBA Lmax)
<= 60.0

60.0< <= 62.0

62.0< <= 64.0

64.0< <= 66.0

66.0< <= 68.0

68.0< <= 70.0

70.0< <= 72.0

72.0< <= 74.0

74.0< <= 76.0

76.0< <= 78.0

78.0< <= 80.0

80.0<
Scale
0 50 100 200 300 400
feet
Signs and symbols
Point source
Main building
70 dBA Lmax
Geometry bitmap
C:\Users\JStephens\OneDrive - LSA Associates\DESKTOP\SOUNDPLAN\SNN2102 - 2740 W Nielsen\OpsMax.sgs - last edit 10/12/2022

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT
F EBRUARY 2023
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\SNN2102 2740 W. Nielsen\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public Review\Appendices Cover Sheets.docx (02/16/23)

APPENDIX M

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE OFFICE /WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA

TRAFFIC IM PACT ST U D Y
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE PROJECT

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared under the supervision of Ambarish Mukherjee, P.E.

December 2021

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE PROJECT

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Jill Gormley, City Traffic Engineer
City of Fresno
Room 4016
Fresno, California 93721
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781‐9310
Project No. SNN2101

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 1

1.2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Study Intersections........................................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Roadway Segments.......................................................................................... 3

1.2.3 Worst Case Scenario Study Area ...................................................................... 3

1.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 1.0 FIGURES ..................................................................................... 4

2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS.......................................................................... 8

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS ................................................................................... 8

2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROCEDURES AND THRESHOLDS ................................................... 8

2.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 2.0 TABLES ....................................................................................... 9

3.0 CIRCULATION NETWORK SETTING .......................................................................................... 13

3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK................................................................................. 13

3.2 EXISTING BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES ....................................... 13

3.2.1 Bicycle Facilities.............................................................................................. 13

3.2.2 Pedestrian Facilities........................................................................................ 14

3.2.3 Transit Facilities.............................................................................................. 14

3.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 3.0 FIGURES ................................................................................... 14

4.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIOS........................................................ 19

4.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES...................................................................................... 19

4.2 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................... 20

4.3 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................... 20

4.4 LIST OF CHAPTER 4.0 FIGURES AND TABLES .............................................................. 20

5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC..................................................................................................................... 33

5.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION....................................................................................... 33

5.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ...................................................... 33

5.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 5.0 FIGURES AND TABLES .............................................................. 33

6.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR WITH PROJECT SCENARIOS............................................................... 41

6.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 6.0 FIGURES ................................................................................... 41

7.0 INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE.............................................. 45

7.1 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 45

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) ii

7.1.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 45

7.1.2 Roadway Segments........................................................................................ 45

7.2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE ............................................................ 45

7.2.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 45

7.2.2 Roadway Segments........................................................................................ 45

7.3 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE....................................................................................................................... 46

7.3.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 46

7.3.2 Roadway Segments........................................................................................ 46

7.4 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE.......................... 46

7.4.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 46

7.4.2 Roadway Segments........................................................................................ 46

7.4 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE................................. 46

7.4.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 46

7.4.2 Roadway Segments........................................................................................ 47

7.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 7.0 TABLES ..................................................................................... 47

8.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS................................................................................................................. 54

8.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 8.0 TABLES ..................................................................................... 54

9.0 CALTRANS SCENARIO ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 56

9.1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................... 56

9.1.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 56

9.1.2 Freeway Basic and Merge/Diverge Study Area.............................................. 56

9.2 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY........................................ 57

9.2.1 Intersections................................................................................................... 57

9.2.2 Freeway Mainline and Merge/Diverge Segments.......................................... 57

9.3 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS LOS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 57

9.3.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 57

9.3.2 Freeway Segments......................................................................................... 58

9.4 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS LOS ANALYSIS ................... 58

9.4.1 Study Intersections......................................................................................... 58

9.4.2 Freeway Segments......................................................................................... 58

9.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 9.0 FIGURES AND TABLES .............................................................. 58

10.0 SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS............................................................................................................. 72

10.1 EVALUATION OF PROJECT DRIVEWAYS...................................................................... 72

11.0 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 73

11.1 MARKS AVENUE/BELMONT AVENUE ......................................................................... 73

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) iii

11.2 HUGHES AVENUE/BELMONT AVENUE ....................................................................... 73

11.3 HUGHES AVENUE/NIELSEN AVENUE.......................................................................... 74

11.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 11.0 FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................ 74

12.0 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING SOURCES ...................................................... 93

12.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................. 93

12.2 FUNDING SOURCES AND MECHANISMS .................................................................... 93

12.2.1 Citywide Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) Program.......................... 93

12.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 12.0 TABLES ................................................................................... 93

13.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 95

13.1 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 95

13.1.1 Thresholds of Significance............................................................................... 95

13.1.2 Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update .............................................................. 96

13.1.3 Model Runs and Project VMT Estimation ....................................................... 96

13.2 PROJECT VMT ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 96

13.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 13.0 TABLES ................................................................................... 96

14.0 COLLISION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 98

14.1 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 98

14.2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 98

14.2.1 Intersections.................................................................................................... 98

14.2.2 Roadway Segment........................................................................................... 98

14.2.3 Freeway Segment............................................................................................ 99

14.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 99

14.4 LIST OF CHAPTER 14.0 TABLES ................................................................................... 99

15.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 102

15.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY........................................................................... 102

15.2 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) CONDITIONS SUMMARY................ 102

15.3 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) CONDITIONS SUMMARY ............................................... 102

15.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............................................................................... 102

15.5 WORST CASE SCENARIO ANALYSIS SUMMARY ........................................................ 102

15.6 SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS SUMMARY ........................................................................... 102

15.7 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ................................................................. 102

15.7 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY ............................................................. 103

15.8 CEQA VMT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ............................................................................. 103

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) iv

15.9 COLLISION ANALYSIS SUMMARY.............................................................................. 103

APPENDICES
A: SCOPING AGREEMENT
B: TRAFFIC COUNT SHEETS AND SIGNAL TIMING SHEETS
C: VOLUME DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS
D: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
E: QUEUING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
F: FREEWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
G: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
H: CRASH DATA SUMMARY

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) v

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1‐1: Regional and Project Location.............................................................................................. 5 Figure 1‐2: Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 6 Figure 1‐3: Study Area Intersections...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3‐1: Existing Study Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Control .............................................. 15 Figure 3‐2: City of Fresno Roadway Classification................................................................................ 16 Figure 3‐3: City of Fresno Existing and Proposed Bikeway Network.................................................... 17 Figure 3‐4: City of Fresno Existing and Proposed Sidewalks................................................................ 18 Figure 4‐1: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................................... 22 Figure 4‐2: Cumulative Project Locations............................................................................................. 23 Figure 4‐3: Cumulative Projects Trip Assignment ................................................................................ 24 Figure 4‐4: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................................................................25 Figure 4‐5: Cumulative Year (2035) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................26 Figure 5‐1: Project Trip Distribution – Passenger Car .......................................................................... 35 Figure 5‐2: Project Trip Distribution – Truck ........................................................................................ 36 Figure 5‐3: Project Trip Assignment – Passenger Car........................................................................... 37 Figure 5‐4: Project Trip Assignment – Truck ........................................................................................ 38 Figure 5‐5: Total Project PCE Trip Assignment..................................................................................... 39 Figure 6‐1: Existing with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................................... 42 Figure 6‐2: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..........43 Figure 6‐3: Cumulative Year (2035) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes......................................44 Figure 9‐1: Project Trip Distribution – Passenger Car .......................................................................... 59 Figure 9‐2: Project Trip Distribution – Truck ........................................................................................ 60 Figure9‐3: Project Trip Assignment – Passenger Car............................................................................ 61 Figure 9‐4: Project Trip Assignment – Truck ........................................................................................ 62 Figure 9‐5: Total Project PCE Trip Assignment..................................................................................... 63 Figure 9‐6: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..........64 Figure 9‐7: Cumulative year (2035) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes......................................65 Figure 11‐1: Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue– Existing Conditions....................76 Figure 11‐2: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue – Existing Conditions .............77 Figure 11‐3: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue ‐ Near‐term Approved and pending with project Conditions .......................................................................................... 78 Figure 11‐4: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Conditions......................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 11‐5: Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue ................................................... 80 Figure 11‐6: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue – Existing Conditions ...........81 Figure 11‐7: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue –Near‐term Approved and pending with project Conditions .......................................................................................... 82 Figure 11‐8: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue Cumulative Year (2035) Conditions......................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 11‐9: Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue ..................................................... 84

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) vi Figure 11‐10: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue – Existing Conditions...........85 Figure 11‐11: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue –Near‐term Approved and pending with project Conditions .......................................................................................... 86 Figure 11‐12: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Conditions......................................................................................................................... 87 TABLES
Table 2‐A: Intersection Level of Service Definitions............................................................................. 10 Table 2‐B: Roadway Segment Level of Service Definitions .................................................................. 10 Table 2‐C: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized and Signalized Intersections..............................11 Table 2‐D: Roadway Segment Capacity and Levels of Service ............................................................. 11 Table 2‐E: Level of Service Criteria for Freeway Segments.................................................................. 11 Table 2‐F: Level Of Service Criteria for Ramps and Ramp Junctions.................................................... 12 Table 4‐A: Existing Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 27 Table 4‐B: Cumulative Projects Trip Generation.................................................................................. 28 Table 4‐C: Near term approved and pending (2023) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes .........31 Table 4‐D: Cumulative Year (2035) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes.....................................32 Table 5‐A: Project Trip Generation....................................................................................................... 40 Table 7‐A: Existing Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................................ 48 Table 7‐B: Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service ...................................................................... 49 Table 7‐C: Near term approved and pending (2023) with project Intersection Levels of Service..........................................................................................................................................50 Table 7‐D: Near term approved and pending (2023) with project Roadway Segment Levels of Service..........................................................................................................................................51 Table 7‐E: Cumulative Year (2035) Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................... 52 Table 7‐F: Cumulative Year (2035) Roadway Segment Levels of Service............................................. 53 Table 8‐A: Intersection Queuing Analysis............................................................................................. 55 Table 9‐A: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Freeway Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................................................................66 Table 9‐B: Cumulative Year (2035) with Project Freeway Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................67 Table 9‐C: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project Intersection Levels of Service..........................................................................................................................................68 Table 9‐D: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project Freeway Segment Levels of Service..........................................................................................................................................69 Table 9‐E: Cumulative Year (2035) Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................... 70 Table 9‐F: Cumulative Year (2035) Freeway Levels of Service ............................................................. 71 Table 11‐A: Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (70%) ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue .........................................................................................................................................88 Table 11‐B: Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (80%) ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue .........................................................................................................................................89 Table 11‐C: Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition B (80%) ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue .........................................................................................................................................90 Table 11‐D: Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (80%) ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue .........................................................................................................................................91

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) vii Table 11‐E: Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition B (80%) ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue .........................................................................................................................................92 Table 12‐A: Existing with Project with Improvements Intersection Levels of Service .........................94 Table 12‐B: Near Term Approved and Pending with Project with Improvements Intersection Levels of Service........................................................................................................................... 94 Table 12‐C: Cumulative Year (2035) with Project with Improvements Intersection Levels of Service..........................................................................................................................................94 Table 13‐A: Existing (2019) Regional and Project VMT per Employee................................................. 97 Table 14‐A: Intersection Accident Rate per RMEV............................................................................. 100 Table 14‐B: Roadway Segment Accident Rate per MVM ................................................................... 101

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for the proposed 2740 West Nielsen Avenue Warehouse project (project) to be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Marks Avenue and Nielsen Avenue in the City of Fresno. Figure 1‐1 illustrates the regional and project location. (Figures and tables are located at the end of each chapter.) This report is intended to satisfy the requirements established by the City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines (updated February 2, 2009), the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (adopted on June 25, 2020), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as well as the requirements for the disclosure of potential impacts and mitigation measures pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The scope of work for this TIS, including trip generation, trip distribution, study area, and analysis methodologies, has been approved by City staff via the Scoping Agreement process. A copy of the Scoping Agreement is included in Appendix A.

This study examines traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed project under the following five scenarios:
 Existing Conditions;
 Existing plus Project Conditions;
 Existing plus Project and Near‐term approved and pending projects Conditions;  Cumulative Year (2035) no Project Conditions; and
 Cumulative Year (2035) plus Project Conditions.

Traffic conditions were examined for the weekday daily, a.m., and p.m. peak hour conditions. The a.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The p.m. peak hour is the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Roadway segments were analyzed using daily volume counts and comparisons were made to the daily service volume standards provided in the City’s TIS Guidelines.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of four buildings with a total area of 901,438 sf, all of which will be High Cube Fulfilment Center warehouses. The project site designation in the City of Fresno Official Zoning Map is IH – Heavy Industrial. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the designated zoning. The project is anticipated to be completed by the year 2023. Figure 1‐2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the proposed project.

As illustrated in Figure 1‐2, access to the project will be provided via the following seven driveways:

Driveways on Marks Avenue

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 2  Driveway 1: This full access driveway near the northwest corner of the site will be used by passenger vehicles only.
 Driveway 2: This driveway will be used by trucks only. This driveway will allow all movements except for left‐turn egress from the project site.  Driveway 3: This right‐in‐right‐out driveway near the southwest corner of the site will be used by passenger vehicles only.

Driveways on Nielsen Avenue
 Driveway 4: This right‐in‐right‐out driveway will be used by passenger vehicles only.  Driveway 5: This full access driveway will be used by both passenger vehicles and trucks.

Driveways on Hughes Avenue
 Driveway 6: This full access driveway near the northeast corner of the site will be used by both passenger vehicles and trucks.
 Driveway 7: This full access driveway will be used by both passenger vehicles and trucks.

Additionally, as part of project design feature, the project will also construct sidewalks along the project frontages on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue.

1.2 STUDY AREA
Based on the City’s TIS Guidelines, the study intersections for the TIS will be identified on a case‐by‐ case basis for each project. Study intersections and roadway segments considered for the analysis were finalized during the TIS scoping agreement process and based on discussion with City staff.

1.2.1 Study Intersections
Per the Scoping Agreement (Appendix A), intersections analyzed in this study and their jurisdictions are as follows:

1. Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (City of Fresno, County of Fresno);

2. Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (City of Fresno);

3. Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive (City of Fresno);

4. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps (Caltrans);

5. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps (Caltrans);

6. Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue (City of Fresno, County of Fresno); and

7. Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (City of Fresno).

It should be noted that based upon recommendation by City staff during the scoping agreement process, a LOS analysis was not required at the project driveway intersections. As such, the project driveway intersections have been included for project trip distribution, and trip assignment purposes only.

Figure 1‐3 illustrates the locations of all study intersections.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 3

1.2.2 Roadway Segments
Per the Scoping Agreement (Appendix A), roadway segments analyzed in this study are as follows:

1. Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue;

2. Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive;

3. Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps;

4. Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps;

5. Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue;

6. Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue; and

7. Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue.

For each roadway segment, the highest volume on any part of the segment will be considered as the analysis volume for the entire segment.

1.2.3 Worst Case Scenario Study Area
During the Scoping Agreement process, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommended to evaluate the project under a worst case scenario with 60% of project traffic using Caltrans facilities (ramps and freeway segments). This evaluation included intersections 3, 4, and 5 as listed above, as well as the following freeway basic and merge/diverge areas for the SR‐180 and Marks Avenue interchange:

SR‐180 Eastbound

1. West of Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Basic);

2. Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Diverge);

3. Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Basic);

4. Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Merge);

5. Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Basic);

6. Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp(Merge); and

7. East of Marks Avenue (Basic).

SR‐180 Westbound

8. East of Marks Avenue (Basic);

9. Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Diverge);

10. Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Basic);

11. Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp(Merge);

12. Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Basic);

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 4 13. Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp(Merge); and

14. West of Marks Avenue (Basic).

1.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 1.0 FIGURES
 Figure 1‐1: Regional and Project Location
 Figure 1‐2: Conceptual Site Plan
 Figure 1‐3: Study Area Intersections
ÄÆ180
ÄÆ99

BELMONT AVENUE

NIELSEN AVENUE

OLIVE AVENUE

WHITESBRIDGE AVENUE

MARKS AVENUE

HUGHES AVENUE
Project Location

KEARNEY BOULEVARD
McKINLEY AVENUE
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
Regional and Project Location
R:\SNN2101\TIS\GIS\Reports\fig1-1_Reg_ProjLoc.mxd (11/20/2021) SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2021; Google Earth, 2019.

FIGURE 1-1
S
!!
N
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Ã145
Ã43
Ã168
Ã180
Ã41
Ã99
Project
Location
Project Vicinity
0 1000 2000
FEET

!
! !
!
!
!
! BELMONT AVENUE

NIELSEN AVENUE

MARKS AVENUE

HUGHES AVENUE

RAY JOHNSON DRIVE
ÄÆ180
!6
!5
!4
!3
!7 !2
!1
Project Driveway
SOURCE: County of Fresno Streets Data, 2021.

R:\SNN2101\TIS\GIS\Reports\fig1-3_StudyIntersections.mxd (11/20/2021) FIGURE 1-3
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
Study Area Intersections
S
!!
N
LEGEND
Project Site
! Study Intersection
0 300 600
FEET

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 8

2.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LOS can be characterized for the whole intersection, each intersection approach, and by each lane group. Control delay alone is used to characterize LOS for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time due to the traffic signal control, and is a surrogate measure of driver discomfort and fuel consumption.

A complete description of the meaning of LOS can be found in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM establishes LOS A through F for intersections. A description of LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections is summarized in Table 2‐A. A description of LOS for roadway segments is summarized in Table 2‐B.

Table 2‐C shows the LOS criteria for unsignalized and signalized intersections. The TIS Guidelines recommend using Florida LOS tables to be used for roadway segment analysis. Table 2‐D summarizes the LOS criteria used to evaluate roadway segments based on the Florida LOS Tables for urbanized areas, which was adapted from Table 1 of the 2020 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, dated June 2020. The daily traffic volumes represent the total vehicles (both directions) traveling on a roadway segment within 24 hours.

Basic freeway segments have uniform traffic conditions and roadway characteristics. The measure used to provide an estimate of LOS is density, where density is calculated from the average vehicle flow rate per lane and the average speed. Table 2‐E shows the correlation between LOS and flow density. LOS A represents a freeway segment with density less than or equal to 11 passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). LOS F represents a freeway segment with density greater than 45 pc/mi/ln.

Based on the HCM, the LOS for freeway ramps is determined by traffic flow density. Table 2‐F shows the correlation between LOS and traffic flow density defined in the HCM. LOS A represents traffic flow density less than or equal to 10 pc/mi/ln. LOS F represents overflow conditions with high density and congestion.

For all study area intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) analysis methodologies were used to determine intersection LOS. Intersection LOS was calculated using the Synchro 10 software, which uses the HCM 6 methodologies. Roadway segment LOS was calculated based on the Florida LOS tables as described above. For basic freeway segments and ramp merge/diverge segments, the Highway Capacity 7 Software (HCS 7) was used. The software calculates LOS using the HCM 6 methodologies.

2.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROCEDURES AND THRESHOLDS
Study intersections and roadway segments analyzed in this report are under the jurisdiction of the City of Fresno or on the border of both the City and County of Fresno. However, intersections located at freeway on‐ramps and off‐ramps are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Based on the City of Fresno General Plan Circulation Element, the City uses Traffic Impact Zone (TIZ) boundaries within the City to identify acceptable LOS for each TIZ. The majority of the study area is within TIZ III, or

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 9 along the border of TIZ II and TIZ III. TIZ II has a LOS standard of E, while within TIZ III has a LOS standard of D. Therefore, as a conservative estimate, LOS D was considered as the minimum level of service criterion for all intersections. As such, an operational deficiency occurs when the project causes an unsatisfactory condition (deteriorate from LOS A through D to E or F) for intersections or when the project contributes to an existing or forecast deficiency. The project needs to identify improvements to improve the intersection LOS to an acceptable level.

For intersections under the jurisdictions of Caltrans, Caltrans considers an acceptable LOS to be between LOS C and D at all intersections under its jurisdiction (delay of 45 seconds at signalized intersections and delay of 30 seconds at unsignalized intersections).

Caltrans does not have any operational deficiency criteria for study intersections. Therefore, an operational deficiency occurs when the project causes an unsatisfactory condition (deteriorate from LOS A through D to E or F) for intersections or when the project contributes to an existing or forecast deficiency. The project needs to identify improvements to improve the intersection LOS to an acceptable level.

2.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 2.0 TABLES
 Table 2‐A: Intersection Level of Service Definitions
 Table 2‐B: Roadway Segment Level of Service Definitions  Table 2‐C: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized and Signalized Intersections  Table 2‐D: Roadway Segment Capacity and Levels of Service  Table 2‐E: Level of Service Criteria for Freeway Segments  Table 2‐F: Level Of Service Criteria for Ramps and Ramp Junctions

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 10 Table 2‐A: Intersection Level of Service Definitions
LOS Description
A
Traffic operations with a control delay of 10 seconds per vehicle or less and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If LOS A is the result of favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping.

B
Traffic operations with control delay between 10 seconds per vehicle and 20 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐ to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A.

C
Traffic operations with control delay between 20 and 35 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate.

Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of the insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D
Traffic operations with control delay between 35 and 55 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E
Traffic operations with control delay between 55 and 80 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when volume‐to‐capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent.

F
Traffic operations with control delay exceeding 80 seconds per vehicle or a volume‐to‐capacity ratio greater than

1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition)
Table 2‐B: Roadway Segment Level of Service Definitions LOS Description
A
Describes primarily free‐flow operation. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control Delay at the boundary intersection is minimal. The travel speed exceeds 80% of the base free‐flow speed, and the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0.

B
Describes reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delay at the boundary is not significant. The travel speed is between 67% and 80% of the base free‐flow speed, and the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0.

C
Describes stable operation. The ability to maneuver and change lanes at mid‐segment locations may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the boundary intersection may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50% and 67% of the base free‐flow speed, and the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0.

D
Indicates a less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. This operation may be due to adverse signal progression, high volume, or inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 40% and 50% of the base free‐flow speed, and the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0.

E
Characterized by unstable operation and significant delay. Such operations may be due to some combination of adverse progression, high volume, and inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 30% and 40% of the base free‐flow speed, and the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is no greater than

1.0. F
Characterized by flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is between 30% or less of the base free‐flow speed, and the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is greater than 1.0.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 11 Table 2‐C: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized and Signalized Intersections Level of
Service
Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay per
Vehicle (sec.)
Signalized Intersection Average Delay per
Vehicle (sec.)
A < 10 < 10
B > 10 and < 15 > 10 and < 20
C > 15 and < 25 > 20 and < 35
D > 25 and < 35 > 35 and < 55
E > 35 and < 50 > 55 and < 80
F > 50 > 80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition)
Table 2‐D: Roadway Segment Capacity and Levels of Service Class I (40 MPH or Higher Posted Speed Limit)
Lanes Median
Level of Service

B C D E
2 Undivided * 15,120 15,930 *
4 Divided * 34,110 35,820 *
6 Divided * 52,560 53,910 *
8 Divided * 70,920 72,090 *
Class II (35 MPH or Slower Posted Speed Limit)
2 Undivided * 6,570 13,320 14,040
4 Divided * 13,050 29,160 30,420
6 Divided * 20,970 45,000 45,810
8 Divided * 28,800 60,570 61,290
1 The Florida LOS Tables includes the LOS capacities for State Signalized Arterials, and recommends a 10% adjustment for non‐ state signalized roadway system. Therefore, the roadway capacities have been calculated using a 10% adjustment to the values provided within the Florida LOS Table for urbanized area for State Signalized arterials.

Source: State of Florida 2020 Quality/level of Service Handbook, June 2020.

Table 2‐E: Level of Service Criteria for Freeway Segments LOS Density (v/c)
A  0.30
B > 0.30–0.50
C > 0.50–0.71
D > 0.71–0.89
E > 0.89–1.00
F > 1.00

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 12 Table 2‐F: Level Of Service Criteria for Ramps and Ramp Junctions LOS Density (pc/mi/ln)
A  10
B > 10–20
C > 20–28
D > 28–35
E > 35
F Demand exceeds capacity

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 13

3.0 CIRCULATION NETWORK SETTING

3.1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
This section provides a description of the circulation network within the study area. Within the City of Fresno, all major roadways are classified based on the Major Street Circulation Diagram provided in the Mobility and Transportation Element of the City of Fresno General Plan. Following is a brief description of major roadways within the study area:
 Marks Avenue: Marks Avenue is designated as an Arterial in the City’s General Plan. Within the study area, Marks Avenue is a 4‐lane divided roadway. There is no provision for continuous sidewalks within the study area. Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of Marks Avenue within the study area. There is no provision for on‐street parking within the study area.  Belmont Avenue: Belmont Avenue is designated as a collector street in the City’s General Plan.

Between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue, Belmont Avenue is a 4‐lane undivided roadway.

There is no provision for continuous sidewalks within the study area. There are no bike facilities along either direction of this segment. There is no provision for on‐street parking within the study area.
 Nielsen Avenue: Nielsen Avenue is designated as a collector street in the City’s General Plan.

Between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue, Nielsen Avenue is a 2‐lane undivided roadway with a two‐way left‐turn lane (TWLTL). There is no provision for sidewalks within the study area. Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of Nielsen Avenue within the study area. There is no provision for on‐street parking within the study area.
 Hughes Avenue: Hughes Avenue is designated as a collector street in the City’s General Plan.

Between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue, Hughes Avenue is a 2‐lane undivided roadway.

Figure 3‐1 illustrates existing study intersection geometrics and traffic control. Figure 3‐2 illustrates the Major Street Circulation Diagram for the City.

3.2 EXISTING BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES

3.2.1 Bicycle Facilities
The City of Fresno is committed to improving non‐motorized travel. Bicycling can be a viable alternative to local work commutes and offers children a healthy way to get to school. To facilitate and encourage bicycle trips among other non‐motorized mods of travel, the City has adopted its Active Transportation Plan in 2016 that includes a network of proposed facilities and implementation plan for the future. The City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (adopted December 2016) provides an inventory of all existing bicycle infrastructure improvements to be implemented in the future.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 14 According to the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan, the bikeway network within the City is classified into four categories: Class I – Bike Paths, Class II – Bike Lanes, and Class III – Bike Routes, and Class IV – Separated Bikeways. Class I bikeways provide bicycle travel on a paved right‐of‐way completely separated from any street or highway. Class II bikeways provide a striped and stenciled lane for one‐way travel on a street or highway. Class III bikeways provide for shared use with motor vehicle traffic and are identified only by signing. Class IV bikeways are physically separated bikeway facilities distinct from the sidewalks and designated for exclusive use of the bikers.

Currently, Class II bike lanes exists along Marks Avenue and Nielsen Avenue within the study area.

Proposed future Class II bike lanes will be added along the Belmont Avenue and Hughes Avenue within the study area. Figure 3‐3 illustrates the existing and proposed bike lanes within the project vicinity.

3.2.2 Pedestrian Facilities
The implementation of enhanced pedestrian linkage with a comprehensive trails system links residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. Safe and attractive sidewalks and walkways improve the walkability of the City. Sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of the streets throughout the City.

Additionally, standard paved trails and non‐standard unpaved trails are frequently used by bicyclists and pedestrians in the City. The existence of trails and sidewalks provides accessible facilities, provides safety features, and improves walkability in the City.

Paved sidewalks are present intermittently on both sides of Belmont Avenue and Marks Avenue.

Sidewalks are proposed on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, Belmont Avenue and Hughes Avenue within the study area. Additionally, as previously mentioned, the project will be constructing sidewalks along the project frontage on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue. Figure 3‐4 illustrates the existing and planned sidewalks within the City.

3.2.3 Transit Facilities
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the Transportation Service Agency within the City and is responsible for coordinating transit services within its service area. FAX provides services via Route 1/Q (Bus Rapid Transit) as well as 17 other routes throughout the City, and four routes for Clovis Transit. There are currently no transit routes present within the study area.

3.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 3.0 FIGURES
 Figure 3‐1: Existing Study Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Control  Figure 3‐2: City of Fresno Roadway Classification
 Figure 3‐3: City of Fresno Existing and Proposed Bikeway Network  Figure 3‐4: City of Fresno Existing and Proposed Sidewalks 17 2
3 4
5 6
FIGURE 3‐1
Legend
Signal Free Right Turn 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Stop Sign Traffic Impact Study
Existing Study Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Control  Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound
Ramps
 

















Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive
Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound
Ramps
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue




f
f
f
f
f
R:\SNN2101\TIS\g30‐ Geo_Exist.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 19

4.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIOS

4.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic volumes for existing year traffic conditions are typically developed using existing count data collected at study intersections and roadway segments. Due to the current statewide school and office closures/restrictions for the COVID‐19 pandemic, new traffic counts will not reflect realistic traffic conditions at the study intersections. Traffic counts were collected in August 2021. However, LSA consulted traffic counters to obtain historic traffic counts at study intersections wherever available to identify the differences between COVID time and historical traffic counts. Existing counts were adjusted accordingly based on the difference between these two counts. Following is a brief description of the development of existing traffic volumes from historic and COVID counts.

Step 1: For the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue, historic counts were available for the year 2016. To develop the existing 2021 traffic counts, a 2 percent per annum growth was applied to these counts and compared to the 2021 counts by turning movements. The higher of the turning movements was taken as the adjusted 2021 volumes.

Step 2: All other study intersections did not have any historic counts available. Therefore, to develop existing traffic volumes at these intersections, a percentage growth adjustment was applied to the counts collected in August 2021 to reflect existing conditions. The percentage difference between the COVID counts and the adjusted existing volumes on all four approaches at the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue was developed for the percentage growth adjustment to be used at the remaining study intersections. It was observed that the north‐south direction has a higher traffic volume based on the comparison of the adjusted historical counts to the August 2021 counts, while the east‐west direction has a higher traffic volumes for the August 2021 counts. Therefore, the percentage growth adjustment was applied for only the north‐south direction/approaches along Marks Avenue.

Step 3: For other intersections along Marks Avenue, August 2021 traffic counts were adjusted based on the growth rate developed in Step 2.

Step 4: Vehicle classification counts were collected at the intersections of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue, Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue, Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps, and Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps. At these locations, counts were converted to Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) volumes. The concept of PCEs accounts for the larger impact of trucks on traffic operations. It does so by assigning each type of truck a PCE factor that represents the number of passenger vehicles that could travel through an intersection in the same time that a particular type of truck could. PCE volumes at study intersections were computed using a factor of 2.0, consistent with the HCM 6 methodologies.

Step 5: The percentage of trucks at the remaining study intersections without classification counts was determined based on truck percentages derived from adjacent intersections with classification counts. At these locations, PCE volumes were computed using a PCE factor of 2.0, consistent with the HCM 6 methodologies.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 20 Figure 4‐1 illustrates existing peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections. Table 4‐A illustrates existing daily traffic volumes at the study roadway segments. Detailed counts are included in Appendix B. Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix C.

4.2 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC

VOLUMES
Traffic volumes for Near‐term approved and pending (2023) conditions were developed by applying a growth rate of 2 percent per annum to the existing without project traffic volumes and adding trips from approved and pending cumulative projects in the area.

Information concerning cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project was obtained from both the City of Fresno and County of Fresno. Figure 4‐2 illustrates the cumulative project locations. The trip generation for cumulative projects was developed using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition), and/or using information from approved traffic studies where available.

Table 4‐B lists the approved and pending projects included in this analysis, and shows the cumulative projects are estimated to generate 330 new a.m. peak hour trips, 389 new p.m. peak hour trips, and 4,450 daily trips.

Cumulative project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on their locations in relation to surrounding land uses and regional arterials, and/or using information from approved traffic studies where available. Figure 4‐3 illustrates the peak hour cumulative project trip assignment at the study area intersections. Figure 4‐4 illustrates the peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections under Near‐term approved and pending (2023) without project conditions. Table 4‐C shows Near‐term approved and pending (2023) daily volumes at the study area roadway segments.

It should be noted that the volume development for this scenario was prepared to develop the volumes for Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project scenario. As such, this scenario was not evaluated for operational performances.

4.3 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Cumulative Year (2035) no Project volume was developed using forecast volumes obtained from the latest version of the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Activity Based Model (ABM) and by applying the Fresno COG recommended post‐processing methodologies. Figure 4‐5 illustrates the peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections under Cumulative Year (2035) without project conditions. Table 4‐D shows Cumulative Year (2035) daily volumes at the study area roadway segments.

4.4 LIST OF CHAPTER 4.0 FIGURES AND TABLES
 Figure 4‐1: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
 Figure 4‐2: Cumulative Project Locations
 Figure 4‐3: Cumulative Projects Trip Assignment

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 21  Figure 4‐4: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Figure 4‐5: Cumulative Year (2035) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Table 4‐A: Existing Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes  Table 4‐B: Cumulative Projects Trip Generation
 Table 4‐C: Near term approved and pending (2023) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes  Table 4‐D: Cumulative Year (2035) Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes  11 / 53  8 / 14
 78 / 126  10 / 35
   39 / 36    2 / 4
24 / 24    8 / 8   
127 / 174  35 / 25 
87 / 63  24 / 11 
17  9 / 11
 4 / 9
   17 / 78
11 / 24   
6 / 3 
40 / 41 
2  3 / 6
  8 / 17

3  395 / 518
 180 / 242

4 
10 / 19 
11 / 20 
5  15 / 34
 152 / 190
   27 / 43
20 / 37   
192 / 239 
17 / 10 
6 FIGURE 4‐1

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 82 / 144
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 11 / 15 24 / 23
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
6 / 14
15 / 1522 / 4726 / 40
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
27 / 4233 / 56
5 / 25
44 / 83
1 / 3
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
402 / 425
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
309 / 568
55 / 3762 / 36
83 / 140
223 / 266
289 / 308289 / 359
399 / 432
3 / 4
28 / 26424 / 25939 / 2510 / 1346 / 738 / 9
49 / 97
261 / 589
67 / 76
479 / 635
6 / 10
31 / 20326 / 3188 / 10
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_Exist.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
ÄÆ180
ÄÆ99

BELMONT AVENUE

NIELSEN AVENUE

OLIVE AVENUE

WHITESBRIDGE AVENUE

MARKS AVENUE

HUGHES AVENUE

KEARNEY BOULEVARD
McKINLEY AVENUE
F-1
F-2
F-4
F-5
F-6 F-7
F-8
F-10
F-9
F-3
FC-1
FC-2
FC-3
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
Cumulative Project Location
R:\SNN2101\TIS\GIS\Reports\fig4-2_Cumulative.mxd (11/22/2021) SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2021; Google Earth, 2019.

FIGURE 4-2
S
!!
N
LEGEND
Project Location
!( Cumulative Project Location
0 1250 2500
FEET
 1 / 0
 18 / 16
   0 / 2  3 / 1
13 / 16    0 / 1   
1 / 1  6 / 2 
17  0 / 1
 2 / 7
1 / 3   
0 / 1 
1 / 2 
2  0 / 2
  3 / 14

3  3 / 3
 6 / 18

4 
18 / 11 
5  20 / 18
 20 / 3
15 / 18   
8 / 1 
6 FIGURE 4‐3

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Cumulative Project Trip Assignment
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 21 / 14
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 8 / 20
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
1 / 8
8 / 1
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
1 / 8
4 / 20
2 / 7
4 / 35
1 / 4
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
3 / 10
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
8 / 16
1 / 26 / 2
3 / 3
14 / 9
1 / 76 / 18
9 / 16
2 / 0
2 / 28 / 71 / 034 / 4
3 / 4
3 / 10
1 / 2
15 / 18
13 / 3
1 / 28 / 7
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_Cumul_Proj.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)  12 / 55  8 / 15
 99 / 147  10 / 36
   41 / 39    5 / 5
25 / 25    8 / 8   
145 / 197  36 / 27 
91 / 67  31 / 13 
17  10 / 11
 4 / 10
   21 / 88
13 / 28   
7 / 4 
45 / 45 
2  3 / 8
  11 / 32

3  414 / 542
 193 / 270

4 
28 / 31 
11 / 21 
5  16 / 35
 178 / 216
   48 / 48
21 / 38   
215 / 267 
26 / 11 
6 FIGURE 4‐4

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Near‐term approved and pending (2023) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 106 / 164
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 11 / 16 33 / 44
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
7 / 23
16 / 1631 / 5027 / 42
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
29 / 5238 / 78
7 / 33
50 / 121
2 / 7
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
421 / 452
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
371 / 607
65 / 4079 / 39
89 / 149
246 / 286
304 / 327309 / 391
424 / 465
5 / 4
31 / 29449 / 27642 / 2610 / 1482 / 808 / 9
54 / 105
274 / 623
71 / 81
513 / 678
19 / 13
36 / 23365 / 3389 / 10
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_OY.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)
 13 / 67  19 / 16
 104 / 182  11 / 38
   43 / 41    5 / 27
31 / 37    24 / 8   
239 / 220  45 / 28 
113 / 70  35 / 14 
17  11 / 12
 4 / 11
   22 / 92
14 / 33   
10 / 4 
46 / 47 
2  3 / 9
  12 / 34

3  453 / 588
 227 / 372

4 
29 / 33 
11 / 22 
5  17 / 37
 187 / 233
   50 / 48
53 / 55   
276 / 281 
59 / 28 
6 FIGURE 4‐5

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Cumulative Year (2035) without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 142 / 213
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 15 / 18 37 / 47
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
17 / 35
21 / 3747 / 10728 / 44
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
93 / 5562 / 82
7 / 35
127 / 123
2 / 24
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
454 / 489
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
390 / 638
68 / 4293 / 41
128 / 198358 / 296
320 / 344361 / 517
446 / 488
5 / 4
32 / 50471 / 29073 / 3411 / 15115 / 17418 / 16
73 / 163
288 / 654
93 / 91
548 / 712
20 / 14
39 / 24383 / 35414 / 11
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_BO.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)
Existing
Existing Project With Project
Roadway # Segment ADT Trips ADT
1 Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 10,190 1,038 11,228 2 Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive 11,554 592 12,1463 Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps 12,019 592 12,6114 Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps 10,651 326 10,977 Belmont Avenue 5 Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 7,240 310 7,550 Nielsen Avenue 6 Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 1,614 616 2,230 Hughes Avenue 7 Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 2,604 456 3,060 Table 4‐A ‐ Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
Marks Avenue
R:\SNN2101\TIS\xRoadway.xlsx\Existing (11/22/2021)
In Out Total In Out Total
F‐1 P21‐02291/Step Up on 99
1240 N Crystal Avenue
Proposed Use ‐ Affordable Housing 98 DU
Trips/Unit1 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Trip Generation 11 34 45 34 21 55 717
Proposed Use ‐ Multifamily Housing 63 DU
Trips/Unit1 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Trip Generation 7 22 29 22 13 35 461
Existing Use ‐ Motel 98 RM
Trips/Unit2 0.14 0.24 0.38 0.21 0.17 0.38 3.35
Trip Generation 14 24 38 21 17 38 328
Total Net Trip Generation (Proposed ‐ Existing) 4 32 36 35 17 52 850 F‐2 P19‐00662/Derrel's Mini Storage West Belmont Expansion 1800 W Belmont Avenue, 1827 W Dudley Avenue
Replacement of existing office/residential building with a new office/caretake 105.525 TSF Trips/Unit3 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.17 1.51
Trip Generation 6 4 10 8 9 17 159
F‐3 P21‐02299/Sun Lodge
1101 N Parkway Drive
Proposed Use ‐ Affordable Housing 97 DU
Trips/Unit1 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Trip Generation 11 34 45 34 20 54 710
Proposed Use ‐ Multifamily Housing 63 DU
Trips/Unit1 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Trip Generation 7 22 29 22 13 35 461
Existing Use ‐ Motel 97 RM
Trips/Unit2 0.14 0.24 0.38 0.21 0.17 0.38 3.35
Trip Generation 14 23 37 20 16 36 325
Total Net Trip Generation (Proposed ‐ Existing) 4 33 37 36 17 53 846 F‐4 P19‐04220, P19‐04222/The OASIS Project
Northwest and Northeast corners of intersection of Madison Avenue and Valentina Avenue 84 Single‐Family Lots 84 SFDU
Trips/Unit4 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44
Trip Generation 16 46 62 52 31 83 793
F‐5 P19‐06300
3075 W Nielsen Avenue
Replacing a 7,000 sf fire damaged metal building with a new 4,920 sf metal bu 4.920 TSF Trips/Unit5 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Trip Generation 3 2 5 9 10 19 186
Pass‐by Trips6 0 0 0 (3) (3) (6) (63)
Net Trip Generation 3 2 5 6 7 13 123
F‐6 P21‐03628
963 N Marks Avenue
Subdivide industrial parcel 148 TSF
Trips/Unit7
Trip Generation 17 3 20 22 4 26 402
Table 4‐B ‐ Cumulative Projects Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Project No. Project Name/Land Use/Builder/Applicant Units R:\SNN2101\TIS\CumulativeProjectsTGDA.xlsx\Cumul Prj Trip Gen (11/22/2021) In Out Total In Out Total
Table 4‐B ‐ Cumulative Projects Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Project No. Project Name/Land Use/Builder/Applicant Units F‐7 P19‐02847/Red Onion Drive Thru
555 W Belmont Avenue
Proposed Use ‐ Fast‐Food Restaurant w/ Drive‐Through 3.500 TSF Trips/Unit8 20.50 19.69 40.19 16.99 15.68 32.67 470.95
Trip Generation 72 69 141 59 55 114 1,648
Pass‐by Trips9 (35) (34) (69) (30) (28) (58) (816)
Net Trip Generation 37 35 72 29 27 56 832
Existing Use ‐ Fast‐Food Restaurant 3.500 TSF
Trips/Unit10 15.06 10.04 25.10 14.17 14.17 28.34 346.23 Trip Generation 53 35 88 50 50 100 1,212
Pass‐by Trips11 (26) (17) (43) (25) (25) (50) (600)
Net Trip Generation 27 18 45 25 25 50 612
Net Gross Trip Generation (Proposed ‐ Existing) 19 34 53 9 5 14 436 Net Pass‐By Trips (Proposed ‐ Existing) (9) (17) (26) (5) (3) (8) (216) Net Project Trip Generation (Proposed ‐ Existing) 10 17 27 4 2 6 220 F‐8 P20‐03068/Truck Wash and Lube Building
125 S Pleasant Avenue
8,100 sf metal building containing 2 truck wash bays, 1 truck lube bay 3 Bay Trips/Unit12 1.92 0.69 2.62 0.69 2.23 2.92 23.08
Trip Generation 6 2 8 2 7 9 69
F‐9 . P19‐04564/McKinley Ave Retail & Residential Complex 2809 W McKinley Avenue
Retail Building 5.480 TSF
Trips/Unit5 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75
Trip Generation 3 2 5 10 11 21 207
Pass‐by Trips6 0 0 0 (3) (4) (7) (70)
Net Trip Generation 3 2 5 7 7 14 137
Multifamily Housing 6 DU
Trips/Unit1 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32
Trip Generation 1 2 3 2 1 3 44
Project Gross Trip Generation 4 4 8 12 12 24 251
Pass‐By Trips 0 0 0 (3) (4) (7) (70)
Net Project Trip Generation 4 4 8 9 8 17 181
F‐10 . P19‐02113/Royalty Freight Trucking Service
50 S Hughes Avenue
The applicant is proposing to develop a new 26,143 sf truck‐service facility for 6 Bay Trips/Unit12 1.92 0.69 2.62 0.69 2.23 2.92 23.08
Trip Generation 12 4 16 4 13 17 138
FC‐1 . AA3752
Rezoning of 0.75 acre to commercial/light manufacturing use South of Belmont between North Brawley and North Valentine Avenu 8.17 TSF Trips/Unit13 0.48 0.14 0.62 0.21 0.46 0.67 3.93
Trip Generation 4 1 5 2 4 6 32
FC‐2 . CUP3066
Kochergen Tranefer Facility
East of Brawley Avenue and North of Nieslen Avenue 7.00 Ac Trip Generation14 33 26 53 26 33 53 530
FC‐3 . CUP3629

2.67 acre waste transfer station
310 S. West Avenue 2.67 Ac
Trip Generation15 39 4 43 4 39 43 170
R:\SNN2101\TIS\CumulativeProjectsTGDA.xlsx\Cumul Prj Trip Gen (11/22/2021) In Out Total In Out Total
Table 4‐B ‐ Cumulative Projects Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Project No. Project Name/Land Use/Builder/Applicant Units Total Gross Trip Generation 167 195 356 218 198 410 4,799 Total Pass‐By Trips (9) (17) (26) (11) (10) (21) (349)
Total Net Trip Generation 158 178 330 207 188 389 4,450 Notes:

DU = Dwelling Units; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions; TSF = Thousand Square Feet. 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
Rates based on Land Use 933 ‐ "Fast‐Food Restaurant without Drive‐Through Window" from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General Urban/Suburban.

Rates based on Land Use 150 ‐ "Warehouse" from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General Urban/Suburban.

Trip generation and distribution obtained from Proposed Kochergen Transfer facility Traffic Impact Study Prepared by Peter's Engineering Group.

Pass‐by rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition) for Land Use 934. A.m. and p.m. peak period pass‐by rates for this land use in the ITE handbook are 49 percent and 50 percent respectively. No daily pass‐by rates are provided. Therefore, the daily pass‐by rate was obtained as an average of the a.m. and p.m. peak period pass‐by rates.

Rates are based on Driveway Survey Counts for Truck Maintenance facilities Rates based on Land Use 320 ‐ "Motel" from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General Urban/Suburban.

Rates based on Land Use 220 ‐ "Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise)" from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General U b /S b b
Rates based on Land Use 151 ‐ "Mini‐Warehouse" from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General Urban/Suburban.

Rates based on Land Use 210 ‐ "Single‐Family Detached Housing" from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General Urban/Suburban.

Rates are based on WRCOG TUMF Warehosue facilities Trip generation rates.

Rates based on Land Use 934 ‐ "Fast‐Food Restaurant with Drive‐Through Window" from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General Urban/Suburban.

Rates based on Land Use 820 ‐ "Shopping Center" from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Setting/Location used is General Urban/Suburban.

Pass‐by rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition) for Land Use 820. A.m. and p.m. peak period pass‐by rates for this land use in the ITE handbook are 0 percent and 34 percent respectively. No daily pass‐by rates are provided. Therefore, the daily pass‐by rate was obtained as an average of the a.m. and p.m. peak period pass‐by rates.

Trip generation Obtained from the Operational Statement for County of Fresno Regional Environmental Complience Center.

R:\SNN2101\TIS\CumulativeProjectsTGDA.xlsx\Cumul Prj Trip Gen (11/22/2021) Near‐term
Existing 2021‐23 Cumulative Near‐term (2023)
(2021) Growth Projects (2023) Project With Project
Roadway # Segment ADT Trips ADT Trips ADT
1 Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 10,190 408 340 10,938 1,038 11,976 2 Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive 11,554 462 392 12,408 592 13,0003 Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps 12,019 481 433 12,933 592 13,5254 Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps 10,651 426 386 11,463 326 11,789 Belmont Avenue 5 Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 7,240 290 375 7,905 310 8,215 Nielsen Avenue 6 Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 1,614 65 88 1,767 616 2,383 Hughes Avenue 7 Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 2,604 104 88 2,796 456 3,252 Table 4‐C ‐ Near‐term Approved and Pending (2023) Daily Traffic Volumes Marks Avenue
R:\SNN2101\TIS\xRoadway.xlsx\Cumul 2023 (11/22/2021)
Cumulative Year Cumulative Year
(2035) Project (2035)
Roadway # Segment ADT Trips With Project ADT
1 Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 11,651 1,038 12,689 2 Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive 13,244 592 13,8363 Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps 13,706 592 14,2984 Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps 13,065 326 13,391 Belmont Avenue 5 Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 8,846 310 9,156 Nielsen Avenue 6 Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 1,772 616 2,388Hughes Avenue 7 Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 3,531 456 3,987 Table 4‐D ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Daily Traffic Volumes Marks Avenue
R:\SNN2101\TIS\xRoadway.xlsx\Year 2035 (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 33

5.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC

5.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) Land Use 155 – “High‐Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse” has a small sample size.

Recently, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) facilitated a Trip Generation Study for such facilities. Therefore, the trip generation for the proposed project was developed using rates from the WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (dated January 29, 2019) prepared by WSP. The study is included within Appendix A. The study provides separate trip generation rates for passenger vehicles, 2‐4 axle trucks, and 5+ axle trucks. The truck trips were converted to PCE trips using a PCE factor of 2.0 for 2‐4 axle trucks, consistent with HCM recommendations. However, as a conservative approach, a PCE factor of 3.0 was used for 5+ axle trucks, consistent with the practices in several regions within the State. Table 5‐ A illustrates the project trip generation.

As shown in Table 5‐A, the project is estimated to generate 2,458 daily PCE trips, with 137 PCE trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 176 PCE trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour.

5.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip distribution patterns were obtained from select zone model runs of the Fresno COG ABM, which take into account the location of the proposed project in relation to surrounding land uses and the regional roadway network. Separate select zone trip distributions for passenger car and truck trips were obtained from the Fresno COG ABM. The select zone distribution plots are included in Appendix C. However, the model does not account for driveway location, driveway access configuration, or the internal site circulation pattern. Therefore, the distribution was manually adjusted to reflect the project driveway locations and access patterns. Figures 5‐1 and 5‐2 illustrate the trip distributions at study intersections and project driveways for passenger car and truck trips, respectively.

The project trip assignment is the product of the project trip generation and the trip distribution percentages. Figures 5‐3 and 5‐4 illustrate the trip assignments at study intersections for passenger car and truck PCE trips respectively. Figure 5‐5 illustrates the total project PCE trip assignment. It should be noted that these figures also include trip distribution and assignment at all the project driveways. These figures help demonstrate the volume development methodology under plus project conditions with addition of project traffic.

5.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 5.0 FIGURES AND TABLES
 Figure 5‐1: Project Trip Distribution – Passenger Car  Figure 5‐2: Project Trip Distribution – Truck
 Figure 5‐3: Project Trip Assignment – Passenger Car
 Figure 5‐4: Project Trip Assignment – Truck

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 34  Figure 5‐5: Total Project PCE Trip Assignment
 Table 5‐A: Project Trip Generation
 7%
 8%  10%  (23%)
8%    (7%)  33% 
1 611
 (1%)  5%
 (32%)  2%  8%
1%  (2%)  33% 
(6%) 
2 712
  (29%) 
 (15%) 
3 813
 29%
 (5%) 
4 914
  (10%)
1% 
510
FIGURE 5‐1
XX% (YY%)Inbound (Outbound) Distribution 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Project Driveway Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Distribution ‐ Passenger Vehicles
39%
(10%)
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
5%
(32%)
15%
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7
(2%)
2%
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound Ramps
3%
(31%)
(10%)
32%
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 (1%)
23%
5%
Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
(10%)
(10%)
Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
(5%)
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
(23%)
(8%)
(8%)
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (5%)
Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue
32%
(23%)
(8%)
6%
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2
(29%)
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Dist_PV.xlsx (11/22/2021)
 21%
 21%  25%  (11%)
4%    (21%)  11% 
1 611
 (1%) (10%)   11% 
1%   11% 
2 712
 
 (25%) 
3 813
 3%  (48%)
 (16%) 
4 914

4% 
510
FIGURE 5‐2
XX% (YY%)Inbound (Outbound) Distribution 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Project Driveway Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Distribution ‐ Trucks
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2
(3%)
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (5%)
(11%)
Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue
10%
(11%)
5%
Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue (25%)
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
(23%)
(4%)
(21%)
23%
7%
(6%)
10%
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 (4%)
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7
(3%)
3%
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound Ramps
(10%)
25%
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
16%
48% 48%
(48%)
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Dist_TR.xlsx (11/22/2021)
 5 / 7
 6 / 8  8 / 11  4 / 6
6 / 8    1 / 2  25 / 35 
1 611
 4 / 5
 6 / 8  2 / 2  6 / 8
1 / 1  1 / 2  25 / 35 
2 712
  5 / 7 
 3 / 4 
3 813
 21 / 30
 1 / 1 
4 914
  2 / 2
1 / 1 
510
FIGURE 5‐3
XX / YYAM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Assignment ‐ Passenger Vehicles
1 / 2
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 3 / 3
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson DriveMarks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound RampsMarks Avenue/Belmont Avenue 5 / 5
17 / 25
1 / 2
3 / 5
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Belmont AvenueMarks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 2 / 2
29 / 41
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
4 / 6
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
1 / 1
2 / 2
24 / 34
1 / 1
4 / 6
1 / 2
2 / 2
4 / 5
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2 Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7 2 / 2
6 / 7
0 / 1
11 / 16
6 / 8
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
6 / 8
24 / 34
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Asgn_PV.xlsx (11/22/2021)
 7 / 8
 7 / 8  9 / 9  1 / 1
1 / 1  2 / 2  4 / 4 
1 611
 1 / 1   3 / 4 
 4 / 4 
2 712
 
 3 / 3 
3 813
 2 / 2  4 / 4
 2 / 2 
4 914

1 / 1 
510
FIGURE 5‐4
XX / YYAM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Assignment ‐ Trucks
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
1 / 1
4 / 4
1 / 1
9 / 9
16 / 18
1 / 1
5 / 6
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2 Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7 1 / 1 4 / 4
1 / 1
1 / 1
1 / 1
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 1
4 / 4
16 / 18
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
3 / 3
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
2 / 2
8 / 9
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 2 / 2
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson DriveMarks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound Ramps R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Asgn_TR.xlsx (11/22/2021)
 12 / 15
 13 / 16  17 / 20  5 / 7
7 / 9    3 / 4  29 / 39 
1 611
 7 / 9
 7 / 9   2 / 2  6 / 8
1 / 1  1 / 2   29 / 39 
2 712
   5 / 7 
 6 / 7 
3 813
 23 / 32  4 / 4
 3 / 3 
4 914
  2 / 2
2 / 2 
510
FIGURE 5‐5
XX / YYAM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Total Project PCE Trip Assignment
3 / 4
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 5 / 5
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson DriveMarks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound RampsMarks Avenue/Belmont Avenue 7 / 7
25 / 34
1 / 2
3 / 5
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Belmont AvenueMarks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 6 / 6
16 / 18
29 / 41
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
4 / 6
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
1 / 1
5 / 5
28 / 38
1 / 1
2 / 2
5 / 7
1 / 2
9 / 11
2 / 2
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2 Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7 3 / 3
7 / 8
0 / 1
20 / 25
7 / 9
16 / 18
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
7 / 9
28 / 38
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Asgn_Total.xlsx (11/22/2021)
Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total
High‐Cube Fulfillment Center1,2 901.438 TSF
Trips/Unit (Cars) 0.083 0.020 0.103 0.117 0.027 0.144 1.750 Trips/Unit (2‐4 Axle Trucks) 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.009 0.002 0.011 0.162 Trips/Unit (5+ Axle Trucks) 0.009 0.002 0.011 0.008 0.002 0.010 0.217 Trips/Unit (Total) 0.098 0.024 0.122 0.134 0.031 0.165 2.129 Trip Generation (Cars) 75 18 93 105 24 129 1,578
Trip Generation (2‐4 Axle Trucks) 5 2 7 8 2 10 146
Trip Generation (5+ Axle Trucks) 8 2 10 7 2 9 196
Trip Generation (Total Trucks) 13 4 17 15 4 19 342
Trip Generation (Total) 88 22 110 120 28 148 1,920
Trip Generation (Cars) 75 18 93 105 24 129 1,578
PCE Trip Generation (2‐4 Axle Trucks)3 10 4 14 16 4 20 292 PCE Trip Generation (5+ Axle Trucks)3 24 6 30 21 6 27 588 PCE Trip Generation (Total Trucks) 34 10 44 37 10 47 880 PCE Trip Generation (Total) 109 28 137 142 34 176 2,458 Note:

TSF = Thousand Square Feet
1 2
3 A Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor 2.0 has been taken for 2‐4 axle trucks based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) recommendations. Further, as a conservative approach, a PCE factor of 3.0 is taken, for 5+ axle trucks, consistent with latest practices in numerous California jurisdictions.

Rates from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) TUMF High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, January 2019, prepared by WSP.

The WRCOG study does not provide in/out splits for the peak hour trip generation. Therefore, in/out splits from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) supplement Land Use 155 ‐ "High‐Cube Fulfilment Center Warehouse" have been used for obtaining in/out traffic.

Table 5‐A ‐ Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Daily
R:\SNN2101\TIS\TripGeneration.xlsx\Trip Gen (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 41 6.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR WITH PROJECT SCENARIOS
Existing, Near‐term approved and pending (2023), and Cumulative year (2035) with project traffic volumes were developed by adding project traffic to the corresponding without project scenarios.

Figures 6‐1, 6‐2, and 6‐3 illustrate “with project” peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections under existing, Near‐term approved and pending (2023), and Cumulative year (2035) conditions respectively. Previously referenced Tables 4‐A, 4‐C, and 4‐D summarize the “with project” roadway segment daily traffic volumes under existing, Near‐term approved and pending (2023), and Cumulative year (2035) conditions.

Detailed volume development worksheets are included in Appendix C.

6.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 6.0 FIGURES
 Figure 6‐1: Existing with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Figure 6‐2: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Figure 6‐3: Cumulative Year (2035) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  11 / 53  15 / 23
 78 / 126  12 / 37
   52 / 52    2 / 4
24 / 24    8 / 8   
127 / 174  35 / 25 
94 / 72  25 / 13 
17  10 / 11
 4 / 9
   25 / 87
12 / 24   
8 / 4 
42 / 41 
2  3 / 6
  8 / 17

3  418 / 550
 180 / 242

4 
12 / 21 
11 / 20 
5  15 / 34
 164 / 205
   44 / 63
20 / 37   
195 / 243 
17 / 10 
6 FIGURE 6‐1

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Existing with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 87 / 149
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 11 / 15 24 / 23
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
6 / 14
15 / 1525 / 5226 / 40
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
28 / 4338 / 61
9 / 31
46 / 85
1 / 3
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
409 / 434
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
349 / 568
62 / 3798 / 74
86 / 143
223 / 266
298 / 316291 / 360
406 / 441
3 / 4
28 / 26449 / 29339 / 2510 / 1347 / 7410 / 11
50 / 99
268 / 596
70 / 80
507 / 673
6 / 10
34 / 20343 / 3189 / 10
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_Exist_P.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)  12 / 55  15 / 24
 99 / 147  12 / 38
   54 / 55    5 / 5
25 / 25    8 / 8   
145 / 197  36 / 27 
98 / 76  32 / 15 
17  10 / 11
 4 / 10
   28 / 97
13 / 28   
8 / 5 
45 / 45 
2  3 / 8
  11 / 32

3  437 / 574
 193 / 270

4 
30 / 33 
11 / 21 
5  16 / 35
 190 / 231
   65 / 68
21 / 38   
218 / 271 
26 / 11 
6 FIGURE 6‐2

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 111 / 169
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 11 / 16 33 / 44
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
7 / 23
16 / 1634 / 5527 / 42
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
30 / 5343 / 83
11 / 39
52 / 123
2 / 7
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
428 / 461
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
371 / 607
107 / 77
65 / 40 92 / 152
246 / 286
311 / 335309 / 392
431 / 474
5 / 4
31 / 29474 / 31042 / 2610 / 1483 / 8110 / 11
55 / 107
281 / 630
74 / 85
541 / 716
19 / 13
36 / 23365 / 3389 / 10
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_OY_P.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)
 13 / 67  26 / 25
 104 / 182  13 / 40
   56 / 57    5 / 27
31 / 37    24 / 8   
239 / 220  45 / 28 
120 / 79  36 / 16 
17  11 / 12
 4 / 11
   29 / 101
14 / 33   
11 / 5 
46 / 47 
2  3 / 9
  12 / 34

3  476 / 620
 227 / 372

4 
31 / 35 
11 / 22 
5  17 / 37
 199 / 248
   67 / 68
53 / 55   
279 / 285 
59 / 28 
6 FIGURE 6‐3

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Cumulative Year (2035) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 147 / 218
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 15 / 18 37 / 47
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
17 / 35
21 / 3750 / 11228 / 44
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
94 / 5667 / 87
11 / 41
129 / 125
2 / 24
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
461 / 498
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
390 / 638
121 / 79
68 / 42 131 / 201
358 / 296
327 / 352361 / 518
453 / 497
5 / 4
32 / 50496 / 32473 / 3411 / 15116 / 17520 / 18
74 / 165
295 / 661
96 / 95
576 / 750
20 / 14
39 / 24383 / 35414 / 11
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_BO_P.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 45 7.0 INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE

7.1 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE

7.1.1 Study Intersections
Previously referenced Figure 3‐1 illustrates existing study intersection geometrics and traffic control.

An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for existing conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐A summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all intersections are currently operating at a satisfactory LOS except the following:
 Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (p.m. peak hour).

Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.

7.1.2 Roadway Segments
A roadway segment LOS analysis was conducted for existing conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐B summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all roadway segments are currently operating at a satisfactory LOS.

7.2 EXISTING WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Analysis of the existing with project scenario is provided to identify direct project related operational deficiency if the project were to be built and in operation today. This scenario eliminates the effects of ambient growth and other cumulative projects and deals specifically with operational deficiencies only due to the project traffic.

7.2.1 Study Intersections
An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for existing with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Previously referenced Table 7‐A summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that the all intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under existing with project conditions except the following:
 Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (p.m. peak hour).

It should be noted that this intersection is already operating at a deficient LOS under existing conditions. As such, the project adds to the existing deficiency.

Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.

7.2.2 Roadway Segments
A roadway segment LOS analysis was conducted for existing with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Previously referenced Table 7‐B summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under existing with project conditions.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 46

7.3 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF

SERVICE

7.3.1 Study Intersections
An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐C summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions with the exception of the following:
 Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (p.m. peak hour).

Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.

7.3.2 Roadway Segments
A roadway segment LOS analysis was conducted for Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐D summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS.

7.4 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITHOUT PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE

7.4.1 Study Intersections
An intersection LOS analysis was conducted under Cumulative Year (2035) without project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐E summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all of the study intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative Year (2035) without project conditions with the exception of the following:
 Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (p.m. peak hour).

Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.

7.4.2 Roadway Segments
A roadway segment LOS analysis was conducted for Cumulative Year (2035) without project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐F summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS.

7.4 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE

7.4.1 Study Intersections
An intersection LOS analysis was conducted under Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐E summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all of the study intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions with the exception of the following:
 Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (p.m. peak hour).

It should be noted that this intersection is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS under Cumulative Year (2035) without project conditions. As such, the project adds to the forecasted deficiency.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 47 Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.

7.4.2 Roadway Segments
A roadway segment LOS analysis was conducted for Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 7‐F summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS.

7.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 7.0 TABLES
 Table 7‐A: Existing Intersection Levels of Service
 Table 7‐B: Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service  Table 7‐C: Near term approved and pending (2023) with project Intersection Levels of Service  Table 7‐D: Near term approved and pending (2023) with project Roadway Segment Levels of Service
 Table 7‐E: Cumulative Year (2035) Intersection Levels of Service  Table 7‐F: Cumulative Year (2035)Roadway Segment Levels of Service Delay Delay Delay Delay
Intersection Jurisdiction Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 1 . Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 18.7 C 95.3 F* 20.9 C >100 F* 2 . Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue City of Fresno Signal 12.2 B 12.7 B 12.2 B 12.9 B 3 . Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive City of Fresno Signal 2.3 A 3.0 A 2.4 A 3.0 A4 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 19.1 B 19.2 B 19.1 B 19.3 B 5 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 4.1 A 5.1 A 4.2 A 5.2 A 6 . Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 8.8 A 10.4 B 8.9 A 10.8 B7 . Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 7.9 A 8.5 A 7.9 A 8.7 A Notes:

AWSC = All‐Way Stop ControlDelay = Average control delay in seconds.LOS = Level of Service * Exceeds LOS Standard
Table 7‐A ‐ Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Without Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
R:\SNN2101\TIS\LOS.xlsx\2021 Exist Summary (11/22/2021) Daily Daily
Volume LOS Volume LOS
Segments on Marks Avenue
1 . Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 10,190 C 11,228 C 2 . Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 11,554 C 12,146 C3. Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 12,019 C 12,611 C 4 . Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 10,651 C 10,977 C Segments on Belmont Avenue
5 Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 4 Lane Collector (Undivided) 31,860 7,240 C 7,550 C Segments on Nielsen Avenue
6 . Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 2 Lane Collector 15,930 1,614 C 2,230 C Segments on Hughes Avenue
7 . Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 2 Lane Collector 15,930 2,604 C 3,060 C Notes:

LOS = Level of Service.
12 Functional Classification obtained from the Figure MT‐1 Major Street Circulayion Diagram, City of Fresno 2014 General Plan.

With Project
Table 7‐B ‐ Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Functional Classification1 Roadway Segment
Without Project Roadway
Capacity2
Roadway Capacity obtained from Table 1, Generalized Annual averge Daily Volues for Florida's Urbanized Areas. Since the facilities ate Non‐State, a 10% reduction factor was applied for the roadway capacities.

R:\SNN2101\TIS\xRoadway LOS.xlsx\Existing (11/22/2021)
Delay Delay
Intersection Jurisdiction Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 1 . Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 26.2 D >100 F* 2 . Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue City of Fresno Signal 12.3 B 13.3 B 3 . Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive City of Fresno Signal 2.7 A 3.9 A 4 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 19.0 B 19.2 B 5 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 5.7 A 5.8 A 6 . Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 9.3 A 11.9 B 7 . Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 8.3 A 9.2 A Notes:

AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control
Delay = Average control delay in seconds.

LOS = Level of Service
* Exceeds LOS Standard
No delay was reported for Intersection 9 (Project Truck Driveway 1/24th Street) because there are no conflicting movements.

Table 7‐C ‐ Near‐Term approved and pending with Project Intersection Levels of Service With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
R:\SNN2101\TIS\LOS.xlsx\2023 CUMUL Summary (11/22/2021) Daily
Volume LOS
Segments on Marks Avenue
1 . Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 11,976 C 2 . Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 13,000 C

3. Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 13,525 C 4 . Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 11,789 C Segments on Belmont Avenue
5 Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 4 Lane Collector (Undivided) 31,860 8,215 C Segments on Nielsen Avenue
6 . Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 2 Lane Collector 15,930 2,383 C Segments on Hughes Avenue
7 . Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 2 Lane Collector 15,930 3,252 C Notes:

LOS = Level of Service.
12 Functional Classification obtained from the Figure MT‐1 Major Street Circulayion Diagram, City of Fresno 2014 General Plan.

Roadway Capacity obtained from Table 1, Generalized Annual averge Daily Volues for Florida's Urbanized Areas. Since the facilities ate Non‐State, a 10% reduction factor was applied for the roadway capacities.

Table 7‐D ‐ Near‐term Approved and Pending (2023) Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway Segment Functional Classification1 Roadway Capacity2 With Project R:\SNN2101\TIS\xRoadway LOS.xlsx\CUMUL_2023 (11/22/2021) Delay Delay Delay Delay
Intersection Jurisdiction Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 1 . Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 21.1 C >100 F* 23.6 C >100 F* 2 . Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue City of Fresno Signal 12.2 B 13.4 B 12.3 B 13.5 B 3 . Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive City of Fresno Signal 2.6 A 4.0 A 2.6 A 4.0 A 4 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 18.9 B 19.0 B 18.9 B 19.0 B 5 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 5.2 A 5.4 A 5.3 A 5.5 A 6 . Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue City of Fresno TWSC 10.6 B 12.0 B 10.8 B 12.3 B

7. Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue City of Fresno AWSC 8.9 A 9.5 A 9.0 A 9.7 A Notes:

AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control
Delay = Average control delay in seconds.

LOS = Level of Service
* Exceeds LOS Standard
No delay was reported for Intersection 9 (Project Truck Driveway 1/24th Street) because there are no conflicting movements.

Table 7‐E ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Intersection Levels of Service Without Project With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
R:\SNN2101\TIS\LOS.xlsx\2035 BO Summary (11/22/2021)
Daily Daily
Volume LOS Volume LOS
Segments on Marks Avenue
1 . Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 11,651 C 12,689 C 2 . Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 13,244 C 13,836 C

3. Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 13,706 C 14,298 C4 . Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps 4 Lane Arterial (Divided) 35,820 13,065 C 13,391 C Segments on Belmont Avenue
5 Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 4 Lane Collector (Undivided) 31,860 8,846 C 9,156 C Segments on Nielsen Avenue
6 . Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue 2 Lane Collector 15,930 1,772 C 2,388 C Segments on Hughes Avenue
7 . Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 2 Lane Collector 15,930 3,531 C 3,987 C Notes:

LOS = Level of Service.
12 Functional Classification obtained from the Figure MT‐1 Major Street Circulayion Diagram, City of Fresno 2014 General Plan.

Table 7‐F ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Segment Levels of Service Roadway Segment Functional Classification1 Roadway Capacity2 Without Project With Project R:\SNN2101\TIS\xRoadway LOS.xlsx\BO_2035 (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 54 8.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS
As recommended by the City staff during the scoping agreement process, a queuing analysis was performed at the study intersections for all analysis scenarios.

Table 8‐A lists the available turn‐pocket storage lengths and summarize the 95th percentile back‐of‐ queue lengths at the study intersections under existing, Near‐term approved and pending with project, and Cumulative Year (2035) conditions. The queues for signalized intersections have been reported from Synchro, whereas queues at unsignalized intersections were reported from Simtraffic.

As shown in Table 8‐A, queues for some of the movements are projected to exceed the existing available turn‐pocket storage lengths under existing, Near‐term approved and pending with project, and Cumulative Year (2035) for the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue.

Based on the project location, majority of the project traffic will be using the intersections of Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue, Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue, and Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue.

However, as summarized before, the project will not result in creating any inadequacy of turn pocket storage lengths at these intersections.

Detailed queuing analysis worksheets are included in Appendix E.

8.1 LIST OF CHAPTER 8.0 TABLES
 Table 8‐A: Intersection Queuing Analysis
Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

1. NBL 230 55 160 50 335 60 470 65 480 65 475
NBR 375 60 90 50 60 50 450 60 590 55 1290
SBL 135 40 50 40 40 40 40 50 40 55 70
SBR 50 55 140 50 110 60 75 80 50 140 20
EBL 105 40 45 45 50 40 40 45 35 45 60
WBL 250 40 80 40 55 55 50 45 60 50 55
WBR 125 30 45 20 35 30 45 20 50 25 50

2. NBL 240 85 60 85 60 90 65 95 65 95 65
NBR 215 15 5 15 20 15 20 20 5 20 20
SBL 245 25 10 25 25 25 25 35 25 35 25
SBR 215 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0
EBL 55 30 40 30 40 30 45 30 50 30 50
EBR 55 15 15 15 15 20 15 20 20 20 20
WBL 215 35 95 45 105 50 115 40 110 50 115
WBR 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3. SBL 110 10 15 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
WBL 75 20 30 20 30 20 45 25 45 25 45
WBR 75 10 15 10 15 10 15 10 15 10 15

4. NBR 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 340 85 105 85 105 85 115 105 145 105 145
WBR 205 10 25 5 25 5 25 40 40 40 40

5. NBR 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 520 20 25 20 25 35 35 35 35 35 35
EBR 520 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. EBL 145 45 45 40 50 45 50 50 50 50 50
WBL 165 45 55 50 40 50 60 50 45 50 45

7. SBR 100 30 30 30 40 25 35 40 35 25 35
EBL 205 30 15 25 20 25 30 45 20 35 15
WBL 205 0 25 15 15 25 15 20 45 35 45
Notes:
ft/ln = feet per lane
EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound L = Left; R = Right
Bold = Queue exceeds available storage.
1 Storage length for all movements obtained from Google Earth measurements. 2 All queues reported are 95th percentile queues. All queues for signalized intersections have been reported from Synchro. Queues for unsignalized intersections have been reported from Simtraffic.

Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound
Ramps
Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound
Ramps
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive
Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
Table 8‐A ‐ Intersection Queuing Analysis
With Project With Project No Project With Project
Storage
Length1
Movement (ft/ln)
No Project
Cumulative (2035)
Queue Lengths2
Existing Near Term
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Intersection Queue.xlsx\Queue Analysis (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 56

9.0 CALTRANS SCENARIO ANALYSIS
Based on the comments received from Caltrans during the scoping agreement process, the Marks Avenue/SR‐180 interchange using a different project trip distribution compared to what was approved by the City during the scoping agreement process. This revised project trip distribution would result in potentially greater impacts at the interchange and therefore would present a worst case scenario analysis of the interchange. To conduct this analysis, Caltrans staff recommended to distribute 60% of the project traffic through the ramps for this evaluation. Based on Caltrans staff recommendation, this analysis was conducted for the following two scenarios:
 Near‐term approved and pending with project Scenario; and  Cumulative Year (2035) with project Scenario.

9.1 STUDY AREA

9.1.1 Study Intersections
The following intersections were evaluated for both scenarios included above:

3. Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive (City of Fresno);

4. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps (Caltrans);

5. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps (Caltrans);

9.1.2 Freeway Basic and Merge/Diverge Study Area
The following freeway facilities were included for the worst case scenario analysis:

SR‐180 Eastbound

1. West of Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Basic);

2. Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp (Diverge);

3. Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Basic);

4. Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Merge);

5. Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Basic);

6. Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Merge); and

7. East of Marks Avenue (Basic).

SR‐180 Westbound

8. East of Marks Avenue (Basic);

9. Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp(Diverge);

10. Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Basic);

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 57 11. Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp (Merge);

12. Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Basic);

13. Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp (Merge); and

14. West of Marks Avenue (Basic).

9.2 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

9.2.1 Intersections
Figures 9‐1 and Figures 9‐2 illustrates the alternate project passenger vehicle and truck trip distribution at the study intersections included in this scenario. Figures 9‐3 and 9‐4 illustrates the corresponding project trip assignment. Figure 9‐5 illustrates the total project trip assignment at the study intersections.

For the study intersections, project trips for this alternative distribution were added to the corresponding no project traffic volumes developed as discussed in Chapter 4 to develop this worst case scenario with project traffic volumes at the study intersections. Figures 9‐6 illustrates the traffic volumes for Near‐term approved and pending with project conditions. Figure 9‐7 illustrates the corresponding traffic volume for Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions.

9.2.2 Freeway Mainline and Merge/Diverge Segments
For freeway segments, existing freeway segment bidirectional volumes was developed using the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume data published by Caltrans in 2019. A 2.6 percent per annum growth rate was applied to the volumes to develop volumes for Near‐term approved and pending (2023) conditions. This growth rate was obtained from the Fresno COG ABM. Freeway traffic volumes for Cumulative Year (2035) was developed using forecast volumes obtained from the latest version of the Fresno COG ABM and by applying the Fresno COG recommended post‐ processing methodologies. For ramp influence areas, vehicles entering and exiting a ramp are based on peak hour turning movement counts developed for the study intersections.

Table 9‐A summarizes the freeway traffic volumes for the Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions. Table 9‐B summarizes the corresponding volumes for Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions.

9.3 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS LOS

ANALYSIS

9.3.1 Study Intersections
An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 9‐C summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under near term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions.

Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 58

9.3.2 Freeway Segments
A freeway segment LOS analysis was conducted for Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 9‐D summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all freeway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS.

Detailed freeway levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix F.

9.4 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS LOS ANALYSIS

9.4.1 Study Intersections
An intersection LOS analysis was conducted for Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 9‐E summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions.

Detailed intersection levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix D.

9.4.2 Freeway Segments
A freeway segment LOS analysis was conducted for Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions using the methodologies previously discussed. Table 9‐F summarizes the results of this analysis and shows that all freeway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS.

Detailed freeway levels of service worksheets are included in Appendix F.

9.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 9.0 FIGURES AND TABLES
 Figure 9‐1: Project Trip Distribution – Passenger Car  Figure 9‐2: Project Trip Distribution – Truck
 Figure 9‐3: Project Trip Assignment – Passenger Car
 Figure 9‐4: Project Trip Assignment – Truck
 Figure 9‐5: Total Project PCE Trip Assignment
 Figure 9‐6: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Figure 9‐7: Cumulative year (2035) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Table 9‐A: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Freeway Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
 Table 9‐B: Cumulative year (2035) with Project Freeway Peak Hour Traffic Volumes  Table 9‐C: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project Intersection Levels of Service  Table 9‐D: Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project Freeway Segment Levels of Service
 Table 9‐E: Cumulative Year (2035) Intersection Levels of Service  Table 9‐F: Cumulative Year (2035) Freeway Segment Levels of Service 17 2


3  58%

4 
2% 
5 6
FIGURE 9‐1
XX% (YY%)
Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Distribution – Passenger Car
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 62% (62%)
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
(60%)
4% 2%
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps (58%) (2%) (2%)
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Dist_PV_CT.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)
17 2


3  56%

4 
4% 
5 6
FIGURE 9‐2
XX% (YY%)
Inbound (Outbound) Trip Distribution 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Distribution – Truck
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 63% (63%)
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
(59%)
7% 3%
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps (56%) (3%) (4%)
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Dist_Trucks_CT.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021) 17 2


3  44 / 61

4 
2 / 2 
5 6
FIGURE 9‐3

XX / YY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Assignment – Passenger Car 47 / 65 2 / 2 10 / 14 11 / 15 Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
11 / 14
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 3 / 4
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Asgn_Cars_CT.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021) 17 2


3  19 / 21

4 
1 / 1 
5 6
FIGURE 9‐4

XX / YY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Assignment – Truck
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 2 / 3
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
6 / 6
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
1 / 1
6 / 6 6 / 6
21 / 23
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Asgn_Truck_CT.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021) 17 2


3  63 / 82

4 
3 / 3 
5 6
FIGURE 9‐5

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Total Project PCE Trip Assignment
68 / 88 3 / 3
16 / 20 17 / 21
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
17 / 20
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 5 / 7
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Asgn_Total_CT.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)  12 / 55  8 / 15
 99 / 147  10 / 36
   41 / 39    5 / 5
25 / 25    8 / 8   
145 / 197  36 / 27 
91 / 67  31 / 13 
17  10 / 11
 4 / 10
   21 / 88
13 / 28   
7 / 4 
45 / 45 
2  3 / 8
  11 / 32

3  477 / 624
 193 / 270

4 
31 / 34 
11 / 21 
5  16 / 35
 178 / 216
   48 / 48
21 / 38   
215 / 267 
26 / 11 
6 FIGURE 9‐6

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 111 / 171
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 11 / 16 33 / 44
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
7 / 23
16 / 1631 / 5027 / 42
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
29 / 5238 / 78
7 / 33
50 / 121
2 / 7
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
438 / 472
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
371 / 607
65 / 4079 / 39
92 / 152
246 / 286
320 / 347309 / 391
441 / 486
5 / 4
31 / 29449 / 27642 / 2610 / 1482 / 808 / 9
54 / 105
274 / 623
71 / 81
581 / 766
19 / 13
36 / 23365 / 3389 / 10
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_OY_P_CT.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021)  13 / 67  19 / 16
 104 / 182  11 / 38
   43 / 41    5 / 27
31 / 37    24 / 8   
239 / 220  45 / 28 
113 / 70  35 / 14 
17  11 / 12
 4 / 11
   22 / 92
14 / 33   
10 / 4 
46 / 47 
2  3 / 9
  12 / 34

3  516 / 670
 227 / 372

4 
32 / 36 
11 / 22 
5  17 / 37
 187 / 233
   50 / 48
53 / 55   
276 / 281 
59 / 28 
6 FIGURE 9‐7

XXX / YYY
AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Traffic Impact Study
Cumulative Year (2035) with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 616 / 800 20 / 14 39 / 24 383 / 354 14 / 11 32 / 50 471 / 290 73 / 34 11 / 15 115 / 174 18 / 16 73 / 163 288 / 654 93 / 91 131 / 201 358 / 296 336 / 364 361 / 517 463 / 509 5 / 4 390 / 638 68 / 42 93 / 41 7 / 35 127 / 123 2 / 24 Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson
Drive
471 / 509
Marks Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen
Avenue
93 / 5562 / 82
Hughes Avenue/Belmont
Avenue
17 / 35
21 / 3747 / 10728 / 44
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Eastbound Ramps
Marks Avenue/SR‐180
Westbound Ramps 15 / 18 37 / 47
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue 147 / 220
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
Intersection Not
Analyzed
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z30_Vol_BO_P_CT.xlsx\Figure (11/22/2021) Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp SR‐180 Eastbound Type Auto Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Total Volumes Truck Volumes Cars Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Total Volumes Truck Volumes 1 . West of Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Basic 1,830 252 2,082 12.1% 1,314 185 1,499 12.3% 2 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 42 0.0% 42 0 55 11.4% 49 63 . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 1,788 252 2,040 12.4% 1,271 179 1,450 12.3% 4 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 320 23.0% 260 60 347 5.8% 328 19 5 . Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Maks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Basic 1,988 312 2,300 13.6% 1,580 198 1,778 11.1% 6 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 246 3.7% 237 9 286 0.8% 284 2 7 . East of Marks Avenue Basic 2,216 321 2,537 12.7% 1,862 200 2,062 9.7% Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp SR‐180 Westbound Type Cars Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Total Volumes Truck Volumes Cars Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Total Volumes Truck Volumes 8 . East of Marks Avenue Basic 2,001 257 2,258 11.4% 2,416 345 2,761 12.5%9 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 670 8.8% 616 54 0 0 894 12.8% 793 102 10 . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 1,439 203 1,642 12.3% 1,725 243 1,968 12.3% 11 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 11 0.0% 11 0 0 0 16 0.0% 16 012 . Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Maks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Basic 1,450 203 1,653 12.3% 1,741 243 1,984 12.2% 13 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 33 26.3% 26 7 0 0 44 15.0% 38 6 14 . West of Marks Avenue Basic 1,469 210 1,679 12.5% 1,773 249 2,022 12.3% Table 9‐A ‐ Near‐Term Approved and Pending (2023) with Projects Conditions Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour
Eastbound
Westbound
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak HourAM Peak Hour
R:\SNN2101\TIS\x_freeway_HCS.xlsx\Exist (11/22/2021)
Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp SR‐180 Eastbound Type Auto Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Non‐PCE VolumeTruck Volumes Auto Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Non‐PCE VolumeTruck Volumes 1 . West of Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Basic 2,332 323 2,655 12.2% 1,619 227 1,846 12.3%2 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 43 0.0% 43 0 58 11.4% 52 6 3 . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 2,289 323 2,612 12.4% 1,573 221 1,794 12.3% 4 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 336 23.0% 273 63 364 5.8% 344 20 5 . Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Maks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Basic 2,499 386 2,885 13.4% 1,897 241 2,138 11.3% 6 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 358 3.7% 345 13 296 0.8% 294 2 7 . East of Marks Avenue Basic 2,831 399 3,230 12.3% 2,189 243 2,432 10.0% Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp Mainline Mainline Mainline Mainline Ramp Ramp Ramp Ramp SR‐180 Westbound Type Auto Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Non‐PCE VolumeTruck Volumes Auto Trucks Total Truck% PCE Volumes Truck% Non‐PCE VolumeTruck Volumes 8 . East of Marks Avenue Basic 2,272 292 2,564 11.4% 3,105 442 3,547 12.5%9 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 743 8.8% 683 60 1,042 12.8% 924 118 10 . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 1,649 232 1,881 12.3% 2,299 324 2,623 12.3% 11 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 15 0.0% 15 0 18 0.0% 18 0 12 . Between Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp and Maks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Basic 1,664 232 1,896 12.2% 2,317 324 2,641 12.3% 13 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 37 26.3% 29 8 47 15.0% 41 6 14 . West of Marks Avenue Basic 1,685 240 1,925 12.5% 2,352 330 2,682 12.3% Westbound
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table 9‐B ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) With Project Conditions Freeway Segment and Ramp Traffic Volumes Eastbound
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
R:\SNN2101\TIS\x_freeway_HCS.xlsx\2035 (11/22/2021)
Delay Delay
Intersection Jurisdiction Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 3 . Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive City of Fresno Signal 2.7 A 3.9 A 4 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 19.2 B 19.5 B 5 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 5.8 A 5.9 A Notes:

Delay = Average control delay in seconds.

LOS = Level of Service
* Exceeds LOS Standard
Table 9‐C ‐ Near‐Term approved and pending with Project Intersection Levels of Service With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
R:\SNN2101\TIS\LOS.xlsx\2023 CUMUL Summary_CT (11/22/2021) Mainline Speed Density Speed Density
Type Lanes (mi/hr) (pc/mi/ln) (mi/hr) (pc/mi/ln)
Eastbound
1 . West of Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Basic 2 73.2 17.0 B 73.6 12.2 B 2 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 2 65.3 24.1 C 65.3 18.2 B 3 . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 2 72.9 16.6 B 72.9 11.8 B4 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 2 64.1 21.2 C 65.2 15.9 B 6 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 3 74.3 13.4 B 74.4 10.6 A7 . East of Marks Avenue Basic 3 73.6 13.7 B 73.6 10.9 A Westbound
8a . East of Marks Avenue Basic 3 73.6 12.1 B 73.6 15.0 B 8b . East of Marks Avenue Basic 4 73.6 9.1 A 73.6 11.2 B 9 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 4 72.5 9.2 A 71.8 11.5 A 10a . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 3 73.3 8.9 A 73.1 10.7 A 10b . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 2 73.5 13.3 B 73.4 16.0 B 11 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 2 65.1 15.2 B 64.6 19.0 B 13 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 2 66.4 15.1 B 65.9 18.7 B 14 . East of Marks Avenue Basic 2 73.2 13.6 B 73.2 16.5 B Notes:SR‐180 = State Route 180mi/hr : miles per hour
pc/mi/ln: passanger cars per mile per lane
Indicates deficient LOS

LOS LOS
Bold
With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
SR‐180 Freeway
Table 9‐D ‐Near Term Approved and Pending (2023) With Project Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service R:\SNN2101\TIS\x_freeway_HCS.xlsx\2023 LOS (11/22/2021) Delay Delay
Intersection Jurisdiction Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 3 . Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive City of Fresno Signal 2.6 A 4.0 A 4 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 19.0 B 19.2 B 5 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps CALTRANS Signal 5.4 A 5.5 A Notes:

Delay = Average control delay in seconds.

LOS = Level of Service
* Exceeds LOS Standard
Table 9‐E ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Intersection Levels of Service With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
R:\SNN2101\TIS\LOS.xlsx\2035 BO Summar_CT (11/22/2021)
Mainline Speed Density Speed Density
Type Lanes (mi/hr) (pc/mi/ln) (mi/hr) (pc/mi/ln)
Eastbound
1 . West of Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Basic 2 73.2 17.0 B 70.5 22.5 C 2 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 2 65.3 24.1 C 65.3 30.0 D 3 . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 2 72.9 16.6 B 70.7 22.1 C 4 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 2 64.1 21.2 C 62.0 26.1 C 6 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 3 57.3 35.0 D 74.1 17.3 B 7 . East of Marks Avenue Basic 3 54.1 37.6 B 73.0 17.6 B Westbound
8a . East of Marks Avenue Basic 3 73.6 13.8 B 72.2 19.6 C 8b . East of Marks Avenue Basic 4 73.6 10.3 A 73.4 14.4 B 9 . Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp Ramp (Diverge) 4 72.5 10.5 A 71.6 7.3 A 10a . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 3 73.3 10.2 A 73.0 14.2 B 10b . Between Marks Avenue Off‐Ramp and Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Basic 2 73.5 15.3 B 70.7 22.2 C 11 . Marks Avenue Loop‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 2 64.7 18.2 B 63.0 25.1 C 13 . Marks Avenue Slip‐On Ramp Ramp (Merge) 2 66.1 17.8 B 64.2 24.9 C 14 . West of Marks Avenue Basic 2 73.2 15.7 B 70.2 22.8 C Notes:SR‐180 = State Route 180
mi/hr : miles per hour
pc/mi/ln: passanger cars per mile per lane
Bold Indicates deficient LOS
Table 9‐F ‐Cumulative Year (2035) With Project Freeway Segment and Ramp Levels of Service SR‐180 Freeway
With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

LOS LOS
R:\SNN2101\TIS\x_freeway_HCS.xlsx\2035 LOS (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 72

10.0 SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS

10.1 EVALUATION OF PROJECT DRIVEWAYS
Previously referenced Figure 1‐2 illustrates the project site plan. As shown in Figure 1‐2, and as described in Chapter 1, access to the project site will be provided via seven driveways located on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue, and Hughes Avenue.

All project driveways will be stop controlled at the driveway approach. Therefore, vehicles exiting the project site from project driveways must stop before they continue to merge on the neighboring circulation network.

The majority of the observed traffic flow within the study area utilize Marks Avenue. Out of the three driveways on Marks Avenue, two of them are right‐in‐right‐out only. For the other driveway, left‐turn egress movement will be restricted. Additionally, a two‐way left turn lane (TWLTL) is present at this location on Marks Avenue. Therefore, project trips using a left‐turn ingress movement can also wait in the TWLTL for the clearance of northbound traffic on Marks Avenue.

Since there is a traffic signal at the intersection of Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue, these project trips will have the opportunity to utilize gaps in northbound traffic created by the signal to complete the turn into the project driveway. Additionally, there are no major obstructions to vision present along Marks Avenue. Therefore, sight distance will not be an issue for these driveways.

For project driveways located along Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue, there needs to be adequate corner sight distance for vehicles to make an egress movement. There is no provision for on‐street parking along the project frontage on Nielsen Avenue or Hughes Avenue. Additionally, there are no trees or large stationary objects that might obstruct the sight triangle for drivers. As such, there should be adequate sight distance at the project driveways along Nielsen Avenue or Hughes Avenue. Therefore, it can be concluded that a clear sight triangle will be available for drivers exiting the driveway to safely make turns onto Nielsen Avenue or Hughes Avenue.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 73

11.0 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
As recommended during the scoping agreement process, signal warrant analysis was conducted at all unsignalized study intersections. Intersection approach volumes for the study intersections was examined to determine whether signalization is warranted per the criteria defined in the California supplement of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA‐MUTCD). As recommended by City staff, three separate signal warrant analysis was conducted for the unsignalized study intersections as follows:

1. Warrant 1: 8 hour Vehicular Volume

2. Warrant 2: 4 hour Vehicular Volume

3. Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Specifically, warrant 1 and 2 was conducted for all the unsignalized intersections under existing scenario, and an analysis with signal warrant 3 was conducted for the unsignalized intersections under all scenarios. Following is a brief summary of signal warrant analysis for each intersection:

11.1 MARKS AVENUE/BELMONT AVENUE
Table 11‐A shows the Warrant 1 – Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A for the intersection under existing scenario. Additionally, since the posted speed limit on Marks Avenue (Major Street) is 45 mph, the 70% traffic volume condition was used for this analysis. As shown in Table 11‐A, the intersection meets the signal warrant. Since Condition A is already met, Condition B was not analyzed for this intersection.

Figure 11‐1 illustrates the Warrant 2‐ 4 hour for the study intersection under existing scenario. As shown in Figure 11‐1, the intersection meets the signal warrant.

Figures 11‐2, 11‐3, and 11‐4 illustrate the Warrant 3 (peak hour signal warrant) for this intersection under existing, Near‐term approved and pending with project and Cumulative Year (2035) scenario.

As shown in these figures, the intersection meets the signal warrant under all scenarios.

11.2 HUGHES AVENUE/BELMONT AVENUE
Based on the traffic volumes for this intersection, a combination of Condition A and Condition B was evaluated for this intersection. Tables 11‐B and 11‐C shows the Warrant 1 – Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A, and Condition B, respectively for the intersection under existing scenario. As shown in these tables, the intersection does not meet the signal warrant. As such, this intersection does not meet either Condition A or Condition B.

Figure 11‐5 illustrates the Warrant 2‐ 4 hour for the study intersection. As shown in Figure 11‐5, the intersection does not meet the signal warrant.

Figures 11‐6, 11‐7, and 11‐8 illustrates the Warrant 3‐ peak hour signal warrant for this intersection under existing, Near term Approved and pending with project and Cumulative Year (2035) scenario.

As shown in these figures, the intersection does not meet the signal warrant under any scenarios.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 74 11.3 HUGHES AVENUE/NIELSEN AVENUE
Based on the traffic volumes for this intersection, a combination of Condition A and Condition B was evaluated for this intersection. Tables 11‐D and 11‐E shows the Warrant 1 – Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A, and Condition B, respectively for the intersection under existing scenario. As shown in these tables, the intersection does not meet the signal warrant. As such, this intersection does not meet either Condition A or Condition B.

Figure 11‐9 illustrates the Warrant 2‐ 4 hour for the study intersection. As shown in Figure 11‐9, the intersection does not meet the signal warrant.

Figures 11‐10, 11‐11, and 11‐12 illustrates the Warrant 3‐ peak hour signal warrant for this intersection under existing, Near‐term Approved and pending with project and Cumulative Year (2035) scenario. As shown in these figures, the intersection does not meet the signal warrant under any scenarios.

11.5 LIST OF CHAPTER 11.0 FIGURES AND TABLES
 Figure 11‐1: Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue– Existing Conditions  Figure 11‐2: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue – Existing Conditions  Figure 11‐3: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue ‐ Near‐term Approved and pending with project Conditions
 Figure 11‐4: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Conditions
 Figure 11‐5: Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue  Figure 11‐6: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue – Existing Conditions  Figure 11‐7: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue –Near‐term Approved and pending with project Conditions
 Figure 11‐8: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue Cumulative Year (2035) Conditions
 Figure 11‐9: Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue  Figure 11‐10: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue – Existing Conditions  Figure 11‐11: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue –Near‐term Approved and pending with project Conditions
 Figure 11‐12: Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) Conditions
 Table 11‐A : Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (70%)‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue  Table 11‐B : Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (80%)‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue  Table 11‐C : Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition B (80%)‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue  Table 11‐D : Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A(80%)‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 75  Table 11‐E : Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition B (80%) ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue FIGURE 11‐1
 Highest Hour Volumes (P.M. Peak Hour)  Third Highest Hourly Volumes (A.M. Peak Hour)  Second Highest Hourly Volumes (15:00‐16:00)  Fourth Highest Hourly Volumes (14:00‐15:00) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
SOURCE: MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIGURE 4C‐2 Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue– Existing Conditions (868, 238) (733, 249)
(873, 285)
0 100200300400
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

WARRANT 2, FOUR‐HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME (70% fACTOR)

MAJOR STREET
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ‐ VPH

MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH ‐ VPH
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
OR 1 LANE (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
1 LANE (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
80 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 60 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. 
(1072, 261)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 2-Four Hour_Exist_Int 1.xlsx (11/22/2021) FIGURE 11‐2
 No Project AM Peak Hour  With Project AM Peak Hour
 No Project PM Peak Hour  With Project PM Peak Hour
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue – Existing Conditions SOURCE: MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIGURE 4C‐4 Traffic Impact Study (868, 238)
(904, 245)
(1119, 270)
(1072, 261)
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (70% FACTOR)

MAJOR STREET
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ‐ VPH

MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH ‐ VPH
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
OR 1 LANE (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
1 LANE (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
100 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. 
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\SW_2021 Exist_Int 1.xlsx (11/22/2021) FIGURE 11‐3
 No Project AM Peak Hour  With Project AM Peak Hour
 No Project PM Peak Hour  With Project PM Peak Hour
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
SOURCE: MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIGURE 4C‐4 Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue ‐ Near‐term Approved and pending with project Conditions (921, 261)
(957, 268)
(1187, 298)
(1140, 289)
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (70% FACTOR)

MAJOR STREET
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ‐ VPH

MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH ‐ VPH
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
OR 1 LANE (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
1 LANE (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
100 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. 
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\SW_OY_Int 1.xlsx (11/22/2021)
FIGURE 11‐4
 No Project AM Peak Hour  With Project AM Peak Hour
 No Project PM Peak Hour  With Project PM Peak Hour
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
SOURCE: MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIGURE 4C‐4 Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue Cumulative Year (2035) Conditions (1030, 383)
(1066, 390)
(1282, 327)
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (70% FACTOR)

MAJOR STREET
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ‐ VPH

MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH ‐ VPH
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
OR 1 LANE (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
1 LANE (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
100 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. 
(1329,336)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\SW_BO_Int 1.xlsx (11/22/2021)
FIGURE 11‐5
 Highest Hour Volumes (15:00‐16:00)  Third Highest Hourly Volumes (13:00‐14:00)  Second Highest Hourly Volumes (14:00‐15:00)  Fourth Highest Hourly Volumes (12:00‐13:00) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
SOURCE: MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIGURE 4C‐1 Warrant 2: 4 Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue‐Existing Conditions (688, 128)
(602, 89)
(571, 114) (603, 109)
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

WARRANT 2, FOUR‐HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME

MAJOR STREET
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ‐ VPH

MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH ‐ VPH
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
OR 1 LANE (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
1 LANE (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
115 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 80 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. 
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 2-Four Hour_Exist_Int 6.xlsx (11/22/2021) FIGURE 11‐6
 No Project AM Peak Hour  With Project AM Peak Hour
 No Project PM Peak Hour  With Project PM Peak Hour
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
SOURCE: MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIGURE 4C‐3 Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue – Existing Conditions (423, 66)
(455, 72)
(592, 118)
(553, 112)
0 100200300400500600700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 

MAJOR STREET
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ‐ VPH

MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH ‐ VPH
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
OR 1 LANE (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
1 LANE (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
115 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 80 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. 
(206,53)
(194,66)
(193,63) (170,63)
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 2-Four Hour_Exist_Int 7.xlsx (11/22/2021) FIGURE 11‐10
 No Project AM Peak Hour  With Project AM Peak Hour
 No Project PM Peak Hour  With Project PM Peak Hour
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project
Traffic Impact Study
SOURCE: MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIGURE 4C‐3 Warrant 3: Peak Hour ‐ Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue – Existing Conditions 0 100200300400500600700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 

MAJOR STREET
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ‐ VPH

MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH ‐ VPH
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 2 OR MORE LANES (Minor)
2 OR MORE LANES (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
1 LANE (Major) & 1 LANE (Minor)
150 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. 
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(387,81) (398,92)
(280,104)(289,105)
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\SW_BO_Int 7.xlsx (11/22/2021)
Total Major Higher Minor Warrant Met
Approaches Approaches
Time EB WB NB SB (≥ 420 Veh/hr) (≥ 140 Veh/hr)
1 Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
0:00 ‐ 1:00 15 39 26 27 53 39 No
1:00 ‐ 2:00 10 0 19 12 31 10 No
2:00 ‐ 3:00 13 6 22 18 40 13 No
3:00 ‐ 4:00 14 18 22 18 40 18 No
4:00 ‐ 5:00 42 62 52 60 112 62 No
5:00 ‐ 6:00 106 85 115 141 256 106 No
6:00 ‐ 7:00 131 105 164 193 357 131 No
7:00 ‐ 8:00 248 130 230 357 587 248 Yes
8:00 ‐ 9:00 182 162 259 289 548 182 Yes
9:00 ‐ 10:00 145 173 240 196 436 173 Yes
10:00 ‐ 11:00 142 221 262 178 440 221 Yes
11:00 ‐ 12:00 173 239 281 206 487 239 Yes
12:00 ‐ 13:00 168 234 383 196 578 234 Yes
13:00 ‐ 14:00 166 242 400 211 612 242 Yes
14:00 ‐ 15:00 192 249 522 211 733 249 Yes
15:00 ‐ 16:00 241 285 662 211 873 285 Yes
16:00 ‐ 17:00 264 236 530 201 732 264 Yes
17:00 ‐ 18:00 171 191 449 206 655 191 Yes
18:00 ‐ 19:00 122 136 296 134 429 136 No
19:00 ‐ 20:00 96 146 121 104 225 146 No
20:00 ‐ 21:00 53 91 183 94 277 91 No
21:00 ‐ 22:00 33 86 99 53 152 86 No
22:00 ‐23:00 24 67 55 29 84 67 No
23:00 ‐ 24:00 22 46 39 26 65 46 No
Total 2,773 3,249 5,430 3,371
Notes:

Meets Approach Volume Criteria
24‐Hour Counts (Veh/hr)
Minor Approach Major Approach
Table 11‐A ‐ Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (70%) Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 1-Eight Hour.xlsx\8 hr Counts Cond A_1 (11/23/2021) Total Major Higher Minor Warrant Met
Approaches Approaches
Time EB WB NB SB (≥ 480 Veh/hr) (≥ 120 Veh/hr)
6 Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
0:00 ‐ 1:00 27 27 17 15 54 17 No
1:00 ‐ 2:00 1 4 17 6 5 17 No
2:00 ‐ 3:00 13 30 7 4 43 7 No
3:00 ‐ 4:00 32 25 8 11 57 11 No
4:00 ‐ 5:00 55 83 13 15 138 15 No
5:00 ‐ 6:00 155 128 52 49 283 52 No
6:00 ‐ 7:00 165 138 43 47 303 47 No
7:00 ‐ 8:00 200 163 66 57 363 66 No
8:00 ‐ 9:00 214 185 77 74 399 77 No
9:00 ‐ 10:00 213 215 73 107 428 107 No
10:00 ‐ 11:00 257 257 104 89 514 104 No
11:00 ‐ 12:00 266 291 94 87 557 94 No
12:00 ‐ 13:00 296 275 114 81 571 114 No
13:00 ‐ 14:00 291 311 80 89 602 89 No
14:00 ‐ 15:00 293 310 109 96 603 109 No
15:00 ‐ 16:00 353 335 128 97 688 128 Yes
16:00 ‐ 17:00 299 269 109 102 568 109 No
17:00 ‐ 18:00 216 239 113 77 455 113 No
18:00 ‐ 19:00 181 170 40 62 351 62 No
19:00 ‐ 20:00 157 173 18 52 330 52 No
20:00 ‐ 21:00 110 129 49 49 239 49 No
21:00 ‐ 22:00 79 125 46 40 204 46 No
22:00 ‐23:00 63 90 30 26 153 30 No
23:00 ‐ 24:00 55 69 14 15 124 15 No
Total 3,991 4,041 1,421 1,347
Notes:

Table 11‐B ‐ Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (80%) Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
24‐Hour Counts (Veh/hr)
Major Approach Minor Approach
Meets Approach Volume Criteria
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 1-Eight Hour.xlsx\8 hr Counts Cond A_6 (11/23/2021) Total Major Higher Minor Warrant Met
Approaches Approaches
Time EB WB NB SB (≥ 720 Veh/hr) (≥ 60 Veh/hr)
6 Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
0:00 ‐ 1:00 27 27 17 15 54 17 No
1:00 ‐ 2:00 1 4 17 6 5 17 No
2:00 ‐ 3:00 13 30 7 4 43 7 No
3:00 ‐ 4:00 32 25 8 11 57 11 No
4:00 ‐ 5:00 55 83 13 15 138 15 No
5:00 ‐ 6:00 155 128 52 49 283 52 No
6:00 ‐ 7:00 165 138 43 47 303 47 No
7:00 ‐ 8:00 200 163 66 57 363 66 No
8:00 ‐ 9:00 214 185 77 74 399 77 No
9:00 ‐ 10:00 213 215 73 107 428 107 No
10:00 ‐ 11:00 257 257 104 89 514 104 No
11:00 ‐ 12:00 266 291 94 87 557 94 No
12:00 ‐ 13:00 296 275 114 81 571 114 No
13:00 ‐ 14:00 291 311 80 89 602 89 No
14:00 ‐ 15:00 293 310 109 96 603 109 No
15:00 ‐ 16:00 353 335 128 97 688 128 No
16:00 ‐ 17:00 299 269 109 102 568 109 No
17:00 ‐ 18:00 216 239 113 77 455 113 No
18:00 ‐ 19:00 181 170 40 62 351 62 No
19:00 ‐ 20:00 157 173 18 52 330 52 No
20:00 ‐ 21:00 110 129 49 49 239 49 No
21:00 ‐ 22:00 79 125 46 40 204 46 No
22:00 ‐23:00 63 90 30 26 153 30 No
23:00 ‐ 24:00 55 69 14 15 124 15 No
Total 3,991 4,041 1,421 1,347
Notes:
24‐Hour Counts (Veh/hr)
Major Approach Minor Approach
Table 11‐ C ‐ Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition B (80%) Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
Meets Approach Volume Criteria
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 1-Eight Hour.xlsx\8 hr Counts Cond_B_6 (11/23/2021) Total Major Higher Minor Warrant Met
Approaches Approaches
Time EB WB NB SB (≥ 400 Veh/hr) (≥ 120 Veh/hr)
7 Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
0:00 ‐ 1:00 7 9 21 12 33 9 No
1:00 ‐ 2:00 5 2 18 12 30 5 No
2:00 ‐ 3:00 4 3 6 11 17 4 No
3:00 ‐ 4:00 2 3 6 10 16 3 No
4:00 ‐ 5:00 23 2 11 11 22 23 No
5:00 ‐ 6:00 44 14 19 49 68 44 No
6:00 ‐ 7:00 55 12 30 38 68 55 No
7:00 ‐ 8:00 61 21 38 56 94 61 No
8:00 ‐ 9:00 56 21 61 64 125 56 No
9:00 ‐ 10:00 44 30 52 80 132 44 No
10:00 ‐ 11:00 46 37 67 75 142 46 No
11:00 ‐ 12:00 44 41 73 91 164 44 No
12:00 ‐ 13:00 63 31 105 88 193 63 No
13:00 ‐ 14:00 62 43 66 71 137 62 No
14:00 ‐ 15:00 66 46 96 98 194 66 No
15:00 ‐ 16:00 63 52 92 78 170 63 No
16:00 ‐ 17:00 44 50 102 96 198 50 No
17:00 ‐ 18:00 33 31 77 66 143 33 No
18:00 ‐ 19:00 33 30 56 40 96 33 No
19:00 ‐ 20:00 64 18 51 7 58 64 No
20:00 ‐ 21:00 22 8 48 44 92 22 No
21:00 ‐ 22:00 12 12 38 39 77 12 No
22:00 ‐23:00 10 5 25 22 47 10 No
23:00 ‐ 24:00 6 5 11 25 36 6 No
Total 869 526 1,169 1,183
Notes:
24‐Hour Counts (Veh/hr)
Minor Approach Major Approach
Meets Approach Volume Criteria
Table 11‐D ‐ Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition A (80%) Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 1-Eight Hour.xlsx\8 hr Counts Cond A_7 (11/23/2021) Total Major Higher Minor Warrant Met
Approaches Approaches
Time EB WB NB SB (≥ 600 Veh/hr) (≥ 60 Veh/hr)
7 Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
0:00 ‐ 1:00 7 9 21 12 33 9 No
1:00 ‐ 2:00 5 2 18 12 30 5 No
2:00 ‐ 3:00 4 3 6 11 17 4 No
3:00 ‐ 4:00 2 3 6 10 16 3 No
4:00 ‐ 5:00 23 2 11 11 22 23 No
5:00 ‐ 6:00 44 14 19 49 68 44 No
6:00 ‐ 7:00 55 12 30 38 68 55 No
7:00 ‐ 8:00 61 21 38 56 94 61 No
8:00 ‐ 9:00 56 21 61 64 125 56 No
9:00 ‐ 10:00 44 30 52 80 132 44 No
10:00 ‐ 11:00 46 37 67 75 142 46 No
11:00 ‐ 12:00 44 41 73 91 164 44 No
12:00 ‐ 13:00 63 31 105 88 193 63 No
13:00 ‐ 14:00 62 43 66 71 137 62 No
14:00 ‐ 15:00 66 46 96 98 194 66 No
15:00 ‐ 16:00 63 52 92 78 170 63 No
16:00 ‐ 17:00 44 50 102 96 198 50 No
17:00 ‐ 18:00 33 31 77 66 143 33 No
18:00 ‐ 19:00 33 30 56 40 96 33 No
19:00 ‐ 20:00 64 18 51 7 58 64 No
20:00 ‐ 21:00 22 8 48 44 92 22 No
21:00 ‐ 22:00 12 12 38 39 77 12 No
22:00 ‐23:00 10 5 25 22 47 10 No
23:00 ‐ 24:00 6 5 11 25 36 6 No
Total 869 526 1,169 1,183
Notes:
24‐Hour Counts (Veh/hr)
Minor Approach Major Approach
Table 11‐E ‐ Eight‐Hour Warrant Analysis ‐ Condition B (80%) Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
Meets Approach Volume Criteria
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Warrants\Warrant 1-Eight Hour.xlsx\8 hr Counts Cond B_7 (11/23/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 93

12.0 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING SOURCES

12.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the results of the LOS analysis, an operational deficiency currently exists at the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue. As discussed in Chapter 11, this intersection meets several signal warrants under existing, Near‐term approved and pending, and Cumulative Year (2035) scenarios. Therefore, the following improvement is being recommended for this intersection:
 Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue: Install a signal.

Tables 12‐A, 12‐B, and 12‐C illustrate the post‐improvement intersection levels of service under existing, Near‐term approved and pending conditions, and Cumulative Year (2035) conditions, respectively. As shown in these tables, the intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS with the implementation of the proposed improvement.

12.2 FUNDING SOURCES AND MECHANISMS
Where there is a funding mechanism (fee program) for the recommended improvements, payment into the fee program would be considered sufficient project obligation to alleviate project impacts.

At study intersections where the project adds to or creates a forecast deficiency and there is no funding mechanism in place, the project is responsible for its fair‐share payment toward the implementation of the improvements.

12.2.1 Citywide Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) Program The City of Fresno traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) fees are charged to all new developments throughout the City to mitigate the traffic operational deficiencies through the funding of traffic signal improvements to serve new developments. Based on the City of Fresno City‐Wide Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact Fee nexus Analysis for Proposed Fee Update, dated September 2016, signalization of intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue is included in the Traffic Signal Capital Improvements, where the entire funding is expected to be generated from the TSMI fees.

Therefore, since the improvement is covered under the TSMI Fee program, the project will be paying into the fee program for this improvement.

12.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 12.0 TABLES
 Table 12‐A: Existing with Project with Improvements Intersection Levels of Service  Table 12‐B: Near‐Term Approved and Pending with Project with Improvements Intersection Levels of Service
 Table 12‐C: Cumulative (2035) with Project with Improvements Intersection Levels of Service Delay Delay Delay Delay
Intersection Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 1 . Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue AWSC 20.9 C >100 F * Signal 20.6 C 22.3 C Delay Delay Delay Delay
Intersection Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 1 . Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue AWSC 26.2 D >100 F * Signal 21.3 C 23.3 C Delay Delay Delay Delay
Intersection Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS Control (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 1 . Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue AWSC 23.6 C >100 F * Signal 23.4 C 24.4 C Notes:

AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control
Delay = Average control delay in seconds (For OWSC intersections, reported delay is for worst‐case movement).

LOS = Level of Service
* Exceeds LOS Standard
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Table 12‐C ‐ Cumulative Year (2035) with Project with Recommended Improvements Intersection Levels of Service With Project Without Improvements With Project With Improvements A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour
Table 12‐B ‐ Near‐Term approved and pending with Project with Recommended Improvements Intersection Levels of Service With Project Without Improvements With Project With Improvements Table 12‐A ‐ Existing with Project with Recommended Improvements Intersection Levels of Service With Project Without Improvements With Project With Improvements A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour R:\SNN2101\TIS\LOS.xlsx\All Summary MIT (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 95

13.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for use. Among the changes to the guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and level of service from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The City adopted the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines) on June 25, 2020, which includes the screening criteria, VMT analysis methodology, VMT impact thresholds, and VMT mitigation measures. Therefore, the City’s VMT Guidelines was used in the evaluation of the project’s VMT analysis.

13.1 METHODOLOGY
The VMT Guidelines provides multiple screening criteria for land use projects. The project was compared with the screening criteria established in the “Project Screening” section of the VMT Guidelines to check if the project can be screened out. Following is a brief description about the project in relation with the project screening criteria:
 Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: The project is not located within a TPA. Therefore, this screening criteria does not apply to the project.
 Low Trip Generator: The VMT Guidelines identifies that projects generating less than 500 daily trips could also be screened out. As discussed in the project trip generation section, the project is estimated to generate 2,458 daily trips. Therefore, the project does not satisfy this screening criteria.
 Other Screening Criteria: The project is not a residential or office projects, and therefore it could not be screened out using low VMT area maps. Additionally, it is neither an affordable housing project nor it could be classified as retail, institutional/government uses or public service uses. Therefore, these criteria do not apply for the project.

As shown above, the project could not be screened out from detailed VMT analysis. As such, pursuant to the VMT Guidelines, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted to assess the project’s VMT impact.

13.1.1 Thresholds of Significance
Though the project is non‐residential it could not be classified as a retail or office project.

Additionally, the project does not require a General Plan Amendment (GPA). Therefore, pursuant to the VMT Guidelines, the project VMT per employee needs to be compared with the existing VMT per employee for the region. The City’s VMT Guidelines establishes a numerical value of 25.6 for the regional VMT per employee.

As recommended in the VMT Guidelines, Fresno COG ABM was used for the project VMT analysis.

The model database was updated with the project land uses to calculate project VMT. The project VMT was calculated from Fresno COG ABM model run as described below:

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 96

13.1.2 Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update
The first step in preparation of this analysis was to update the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in the model that include the project area. The project land use was converted to employments. SF to employee conversion factor were estimated from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Daily Trip rates per employee were divided by daily trip rates per 1,000 SF to estimate the ratio between land use square footage and number of employees. The socioeconomic data for the project TAZ in the existing year model scenario was updated accordingly.

13.1.3 Model Runs and Project VMT Estimation
Model run was conducted for this updated model upon completion of the socioeconomic data update. The outputs from this updated model run was used to calculate the project VMT per employee.

13.2 PROJECT VMT ANALYSIS
Table 13‐A summarizes the regional threshold and project VMT per employee. As shown in Table 13‐ A, the project VMT per employee is 22.66% lower than the existing regional VMT per employee.

Therefore, based on the VMT Guidelines, the project will not have any significant VMT impact.

Detailed VMT calculation for the project is included in Appendix G.

13.3 LIST OF CHAPTER 13.0 TABLES
 Table 13‐A: Existing (2019) Regional and Project VMT per Employee

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 97 Table 13‐A: Existing (2019) Regional and Project VMT per Employee Regional* Project Difference
Percentage
Difference Significant Impact

25.6 19.8 5.8 22.66% No
* Obtained from City’s VMT Guidelines.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 98

14.0 COLLISION ANALYSIS
As recommended by the City staff during the scoping agreement process, a collision analysis was performed in the vicinity of the project area. As such, intersections and roadway segments within the study area where accidents occurred in recent times were evaluated to estimate the accident rates at those locations. For the arterial roadway network system in the vicinity of the project, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data between January 2018 and December 2020 were obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database. For the freeway facilities in the vicinity of SR‐180 Marks Avenue Interchange, Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) crash data summary was obtained from Caltrans for the same time period. The SWIRTS data summary and Caltrans TASAS data summary is included in Appendix H.

Based on the SWIRTS data summary, within the study area during the same time period, one collision occurred at the intersection of Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and one fatal collision occurred along the roadway segment of Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue.

14.1 METHODOLOGY
For the intersections analyzed, rates per million entering vehicle (RMEV) was calculated to develop the accident rate at the intersection of Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps. Similarly, for the roadway segment of Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue, rates per million vehicle miles (MVM) was calculated to determine the accident rate. For the roadway segment, length of the segment was determined from Google Earth aerial imagery. Additionally, since the accidents occurred at one intersection and within one segment only, only those locations were evaluated. These rates were compared against corresponding countywide and statewide rates to identify their performance. The statewide and countywide rates were obtained or derived from the data published in Caltrans 2018 Crash Data on California State Highways (Caltrans Crash Data).

14.2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY

14.2.1 Intersections
Table 14‐A summarizes the accident ratio for the intersection of Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps. As shown in Table 14‐A, the accident rate at this intersection is 0.06 per million entering vehicle, which is substantially lower than the statewide average for such intersections. The accident rate for such intersections (signalized T‐intersections under suburban setting) is 0.29 as per the Caltrans Crash Data. Relevant pages from the Caltrans Crash Data summary is included in Appendix H. As such, the intersection currently operates within the safety limits and no safety related improvements would be required at this intersection. Since no accidents occurred at the other intersections within recent years, no improvement is necessary for those intersections as well.

14.2.2 Roadway Segment
Table 14‐B summarizes the accident rate for the roadway segment of Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue. As shown in Table 14‐B, the accident rate at this roadway segment is 0.71 per million vehicle miles traveled, which is lower than both countywide and

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 99 statewide average for non‐freeway facilities. The average accident rate for roadway segments (non‐ freeway facilities) is 0.96 for the County and 1.02 for the state based on the Caltrans Crash Data.

Additionally, as per Caltrans Crash Data, the statewide accident rate for two‐lane undivided roadways with a speed limit of less than 45 mph and in a suburban setting is 1.6 which is substantially higher than the accident rate at the analyzed segment. Relevant pages from the Caltrans Crash Data summary is included in Appendix H. Therefore, this segment currently operates within acceptable safety limits.

However, currently, this roadway segment does not have any sidewalks to provide safe access to pedestrians. As previously mentioned, the City recommends installing sidewalks along this roadway segment under its Active Transportation Plan. As such, the project would be constructing a sidewalk along this segment along the project frontage, as well as project frontages along Marks Avenue and Nielsen Avenue as a project design feature. The addition of these sidewalks by the project would enhance pedestrian access and address safety concerns.

Since no accidents happened along other roadway segments within the study area, no improvement have been recommended at those segments.

14.2.3 Freeway Segment
Based on the TASAS data for freeway facilities, 36 collisions occurred in the freeway facilities within one mile on either side of the SR‐180 and Marks Avenue interchange. None of these collisions resulted in any fatalities. The Caltrans TASAS data summary is included in Appendix H. As included in the summary, the rate of total fatal and injury related collisions along this facility is lower than the corresponding average rate for similar facilities.

14.3 CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this analysis, no improvement is necessary within the study area with the exception of installation of sidewalk along the project frontage on Hughes Avenue. Though the project will be adding new trips within the study area, it is not estimated that the project traffic will be significantly changing the traffic flow pattern within the neighborhood. As such, it is not expected that the project traffic will result in unsafe environment within the study area from traffic safety perspective. As described in the previous chapter, project traffic are estimated to have adequate time for turn movements and corner sight clearance along the project driveway and the intersections. Therefore, both car and truck trips generated by the project could safely maneuver throughout the study area. As such, the project would not potentially increase traffic collision rate within the study area.

14.4 LIST OF CHAPTER 14.0 TABLES
 Table 14‐A: Intersection Accident Rate per RMEV
 Table 14‐B: Roadway Segment Accident Rate per MVM
# of Existing Years Accident
Crashes Daily Approach of Data Ratio
Intersection C V N R
4 . Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps 1 16,474 3 0.06 Notes:

RMEV= Rate per Million Entering Vehicle
Table 14‐A ‐ Intersection Accident Rate per RMEV
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Crash data.xlsx\Intersection (11/22/2021) # of Existing Years Length of Accident
Crashes ADT of Data Segment (ft)1 Ratio
Roadway # Segment C V N L R
Hughes Avenue 7 Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue 1 2,604 3 2,587 0.72 Notes:

MVM = Million Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Table 14‐B ‐ Roadway Segment Accident Rate per MVM
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Crash data.xlsx\Roadway (11/22/2021)

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 102

15.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The proposed project consists of four buildings with a total area of 901,438 sf, all of which will be High Cube Fulfilment Center warehouses. Access to the project site would be provided via seven driveways located on Marks Avenue, Nielsen Avenue and Hughes Avenue. The project is estimated to generate 2,458 daily PCE trips, with 137 PCE trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 176 PCE trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour.

15.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY
All but one study intersections and all roadway segments operate at a satisfactory LOS under existing without and with project conditions.

15.2 NEAR‐TERM APPROVED AND PENDING (2023) CONDITIONS SUMMARY All but one study intersections and all roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions.

15.3 CUMULATIVE YEAR (2035) CONDITIONS SUMMARY
All but one study intersections and all roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Cumulative Year (2035) without and with project conditions.

15.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Except for some movements for the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue, all other study intersections are forecast to have adequate storage lane lengths to accommodate queues under all scenarios.

15.5 WORST CASE SCENARIO ANALYSIS SUMMARY
All study intersections and freeway segments evaluated under this scenario are forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under Near‐term approved and pending (2023) with project conditions and Cumulative Year (2035) with project conditions.

15.6 SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The project driveways have adequate corner sight distance and will be stop controlled. Based on the locations of the project driveways, the project is not anticipated to create deficiency in the neighborhood traffic flow pattern.

15.7 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue meets signal warrant 1 and signal warrant 2 under existing conditions. This intersection also meets peak hour signal warrant for existing and all other analysis scenarios. The intersections of Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue and Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue do not meet any signal warrant under any scenario.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 103

15.7 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Based on the improvements discussed in Section 12.1 “Recommended Improvements” of this report, the recommended improvements includes installing a signal at the intersection of Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue. This improvement is included in the City’s TSMI fee program.

15.8 CEQA VMT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The project could not be screened out and a detailed VMT analysis was performed for the project.

Based on the results of this analysis, the project will not have any CEQA VMT impact.

15.9 COLLISION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Accident ratio within the study area is lower than the corresponding countywide and statewide average and no improvement is necessary to enhance safety within the study area. Within one mile of the SR‐180 and Marks Avenue interchange, the accident rates are lower than the average for similar facilities. It is not estimated that the project traffic will significantly change the traffic flow pattern within the study area or increase the current collision frequency.

T RAFFIC I MPACT STUDY
DECEMBER 2021
2740 WEST NIELSEN AVENUE WAREHOUSE P ROJECT

F RESNO, C ALIFORNIA
R:\SNN2101\TIS\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse TIS.docx (12/02/21) 104 APPENDIX A:

SCOPING AGREEMENT
7/19/21 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx)

CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa.net July 19, 2021
Ms. Jill Gormley
City Traffic Engineer, City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Room 4016
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Scope of Work for the 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Traffic Impact Study (LSA Project No. SNN2101)
Dear Jill:

LSA will be preparing a traffic impact study (TIS) for the proposed 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project (project) to be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Marks Avenue and Nielsen Avenue in the City of Fresno (City). Figure 1 (all figures and tables attached) illustrates the regional and project location.

The proposed project includes four High Cube Fulfillment Center warehouses totaling an area of 907,780 square feet (sf). Access to the project will be provided via the following seven driveways:

Driveways on Marks Avenue
 Driveway 1: This full access driveway located on Marks Avenue near the Northwest corner of the site will be used by passenger vehicles only.
 Driveway 2: This driveway located on Marks Avenue will be used by trucks only. This driveway will allow all movements except for left‐turn egress from the project site.  Driveway 3: This right‐in‐right‐out driveway located on Marks Avenue near the Southwest corner of the site will be used by passenger vehicles only.

Driveways on Nielsen Avenue
 Driveway 4: This right‐in‐right‐out driveway located on Nielsen Avenue will be used by passenger vehicles only.
 Driveway 5: This full access driveway located on Nielsen Avenue will be used by both passenger vehicles and trucks.

Driveways on Hughes Avenue
 Driveway 6: This full access driveway located on Hughes Avenue near the Northeast corner of the site will be used by both passenger vehicles and trucks.  Driveway 7: This full access driveway located on Hughes Avenue will be used by both passenger vehicles and trucks.

Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan and the driveway locations. 7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 2 The project site designation in the City of Fresno Official Zoning Map is IH – Heavy Industrial. The project is consistent with the designated zoning. LSA anticipates that the following scope of work will be required to prepare the TIS for the proposed project.

SCOPE OF WORK: CEQA TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) required changes be made to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations introducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric for determining project traffic impacts. Thus, a VMT analysis will be conducted for the project to satisfy the CEQA requirements.

The City adopted the City of Fresno CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines) on June 25, 2020, which includes the screening criteria, VMT analysis methodology, VMT impact thresholds, and VMT mitigation measures. Based on the screening criteria provided in the VMT Guidelines, it is anticipated that the project will not be screened out from a detailed VMT analysis.

LSA will utilize the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Activity Based Model (ABM) for the VMT calculations for the project. Recently LSA has been selected as one of the consultants to run the model in‐house for VMT analysis and other purposes. Therefore, LSA will run the model in‐house and extract the project VMT for the VMT analysis purposes. The CEQA VMT Assessment will involve the following steps:

Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update
The first step in preparation of this analysis will be to update the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the model that include the project area. LSA will convert the project land use into model socioeconomic categories using regional conversion factors. The socioeconomic data for the project TAZ in the existing year model scenario will be updated.

Project VMT Analysis
Upon completion of the socioeconomic data update, LSA will conduct model run for the existing scenario. LSA will utilize the outputs from the model runs to calculate the regional (Entire Fresno County) with project VMT per employee. Further, with project regional VMT per employee will be compared to corresponding no project VMT per employee under existing conditions. As per the City’s VMT analysis guidelines, if the with project VMT per employee exceeds the no project VMT per employee, then the project would create a significant VMT impact.

The TIS will include a chapter with the detailed VMT analysis methodology and results, and a discussion on mitigations if a significant VMT impact is found. The VMT methodology and findings will be confirmed with City staff prior to inclusion in the TIS.

Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis
The TIS will evaluate potential project impacts on public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project. The analysis will determine whether the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities. 7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 3 SCOPE OF WORK: LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
While Levels of Service (LOS) analysis is not a determinant of CEQA impacts, consistency with the City’s General Plan goals and policies is still required. The LOS analysis will be prepared to satisfy the requirements established by the City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines (City Guidelines), updated February 2, 2009.

Study Intersections
LSA proposes to include the following intersections in the study:

1. Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue (City of Fresno, County of Fresno);

2. Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (City of Fresno);

3. Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive (City of Fresno);

4. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Westbound Ramps (Caltrans);

5. Marks Avenue/SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps (Caltrans);

6. Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue (City of Fresno, County of Fresno); and

7. Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (City of Fresno).

Figure 3 illustrates the study area intersections.

It should be noted that based upon the recommendation by the City, a detailed LOS analysis will not be conducted at the project driveway intersections. As such, these intersections will be included for project trip distribution, assignment and volume development purposes only. A detailed LOS analysis will only be conducted for the intersections listed above.

Roadway Segments
LSA recommends evaluating the following roadway segments in the study:

1. Marks Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue;

2. Marks Avenue, between Nielsen Avenue and Ray Johnson Drive;

3. Marks Avenue, between Ray Johnson Drive and SR‐180 Westbound Ramps;

4. Marks Avenue, between SR‐180 Westbound Ramps and SR‐180 Eastbound Ramps;

5. Belmont Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue;

6. Nielsen Avenue, between Marks Avenue and Hughes Avenue; and

7. Hughes Avenue, between Belmont Avenue and Nielsen Avenue.

For each roadway segment, the highest volume on any part of the segment will be considered as the analysis volume for the entire segment.
7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 4 Analysis Scenarios
The LOS analysis will satisfy the requirements established by the City and Caltrans. The following scenarios will be included in the TIS:
 Existing Conditions;
 Existing plus Project Conditions;
 Existing plus Project and Near‐term approved and pending projects Conditions;  Cumulative Year (2040) no Project Conditions; and
 Cumulative Year (2040) plus Project Conditions.

Trip Generation
The trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) Land Use 155 – “High‐Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse” have a small sample size.

Recently, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) facilitated a Trip Generation Study for such facilities. Therefore, the trip generation for the proposed project was developed using rates from this WRCOG TUMF High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study (dated January 29, 2019) prepared by WSP. The study is included in Appendix A. The study provides separate trip generation rates for passenger vehicles, 2‐4 axle trucks and 5+ axle trucks. The truck trips were converted to Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips using a PCE factor of 2.0 for 2‐4 axle trucks, consistent with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) recommendations. However, as a conservative approach, a PCE factor of 3.0 was used for 5+ axle trucks, consistent with the practices in several regions within the State.

Table A summarizes the daily, a.m., and p.m. peak hour project trip generation. As shown in Table A, the project is estimated to generate 2,474 daily PCE trips, with 137 PCE trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 178 PCE trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Trip distribution patterns were obtained from select zone model runs of the Fresno COG ABM, which take into account the location of the proposed project in relation to surrounding land uses and the regional roadway network. Separate select zone trip distributions for passenger car and truck trips were obtained from the Fresno COG ABM. The select zone distribution plots are included in Appendix B. However, the model does not account for driveway location, driveway access configuration or the internal site circulation pattern. Therefore, the distribution was manually adjusted to reflect the project driveway locations and access patterns. Figures 4‐A and 4‐B illustrate the trip distributions at study intersections for passenger car and truck trips respectively.

The project trip assignment is the product of the project trip generation and the trip distribution percentages. Figures 5‐A and 5‐B illustrate the trip assignments at study intersections for passenger car and truck PCE trips respectively. Figure 6 illustrates the total project PCE trip assignment. It should be noted that these figures also include trip distribution and assignment at all the project driveways. These figures help demonstrate the volume development methodology under plus project conditions with addition of project traffic.
7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 5 Volume Development and Analysis Methodology
Traffic volumes for existing year traffic conditions are usually based on current count data collected at study intersections and roadway segments. However, current traffic counts will not reflect the typical traffic conditions due to the statewide COVID‐induced closure. LSA proposes to use historical counts available from counters, and apply a growth rate appropriate for the City to develop Existing year (2021) traffic volumes.

Existing plus project volumes will be developed by adding project traffic to the Existing conditions scenario volumes.

Existing plus project and Near‐term approved and pending project conditions traffic volumes will be developed by applying a per annum growth factor to the existing traffic volumes and adding traffic from the project, as well as from the approved and pending development projects in the vicinity of the project. LSA contacted the City’s Planning and GIS department and obtained a list of approved and pending development projects in the project vicinity. LSA is in the process of obtaining the list of cumulative projects from the County of Fresno because of the project’s adjacency to the unincorporated County limits. Table B summarizes the list of Cumulative projects within the City. As noted in Table B, LSA is requesting the City to provide additional details for projects that have missing information.

Cumulative Year (2040) no Project volumes will be developed using forecast volumes obtained from the latest version of the Fresno COG ABM and by applying the FCOG recommended post‐processing methodologies. Additionally, the transportation network to be evaluated in this scenario will include all Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) already identified in an impact fee program such as the Fresno Major Street Impact (FMSI) program or Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) program.

Cumulative Year (2040) plus Project Conditions will be developed by adding project traffic to the Cumulative Year (2040) scenario volumes.

All study intersections will be analyzed during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As per the City Guidelines, the a.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. while the p.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Intersection LOS will be calculated using Highway Capacity Manual 6 (HCM 6) analysis methodologies by using the Synchro 10 software.

Roadway segments will be analyzed for daily traffic using the Florida Tables as recommended in the City Guidelines.

Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis will be performed at all the study intersections. Queues for signalized intersections will be reported from Synchro, while queues for unsignalized intersections will be reported from SimTraffic.

Site Access and Circulation
A description of project driveways and illustration on the Site plan will be provided in the TIS. Traffic operations at the project driveways will be analyzed for Levels of service (LOS) and queues as part of the LOS and queuing analysis. The TIS will also include a discussion on the distance of the driveways 7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 6 from nearby intersections, along with the anticipated queues and Minimum Required Throat Depth (MRTD) at the driveways. An evaluation of sight distance and other potential unsafe traffic conditions shall be included in the TIS as requested by the City Staff.

Analysis of Traffic Operations and Recommended Circulation Improvements LOS and delay will be analyzed under the Existing plus Project, Near‐Term, and Cumulative plus project analysis scenarios to determine operational deficiencies at study intersections and roadway segments. Determination of operational deficiencies will be made based on the City’s LOS standards and significance threshold criteria set forth in the City Guidelines and as per consultation with City staff.

Improvements will be recommended at locations operating at an unsatisfactory LOS or where the project causes an operational deficiency. Improvements may include addition of intersection turn lanes, roadway widening, traffic signal installation and modification, local street striping and channelization improvements, and signage. The LOS with improvements will be calculated and summarized along with a comparison of the LOS without improvements.

Signal Warrant Analysis
As per City staff comments, signal warrant analysis would be conducted at unsignalized study intersections. Peak hour approach volumes for the study intersections will be examined to determine whether signalization may be warranted per the criteria defined in the California supplement of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA‐MUTCD). Specifically, warrants 1 and 2 will be included for existing unsignalized intersections under the existing scenario. Warrant 3 will be included for unsignalized study intersections under all study scenarios.

Multimodal Analysis
The existing, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit service will be documented and gaps in the existing sidewalk and bicycle network within the study area as well as current access to transit and current transit service will be identified in the analysis. The analysis will identify connectivity from the project site to the existing bicycle, pedestrian network, and distance to current transit stops.

Improvements that will increase connectivity to sidewalks, trails, bicycle facilities and transit facilities will be considered in the TIS.

Collision Analysis
An analysis of the collision data based on the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) will be included in the TIS.

Fair Share
LSA will evaluate whether the improvements identified in the TIS are included in the City’s FMSI or the TMSI programs. If it is determined that the improvement is not covered through either of the fee programs, then the project’s fair share contribution will be calculated based on the project traffic as a percentage of total growth from existing to cumulative year conditions. 7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 7 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 781‐9310 or email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Ambarish Mukherjee, AICP, PE
Principal
Attachments:

Table A: Project Trip Generation
Table B: Cumulative Projects
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location
Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3: Study Area Intersections
Figure 4‐A: Project Trip Distribution – Passenger Vehicles Figure 4‐B: Project Trip Distribution – Trucks
Figure 5‐A: Project Trip Assignment – Passenger Vehicles Figure 5‐B: Project Trip Assignment – Truck PCE
Figure 6: Project Total Trip Assignment
Appendix A: WRCOG TUMF High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study Appendix B: Fresno COG Travel Model Select Zone Distribution Plots 7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 8 TABLES
Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total
High‐Cube Fulfillment Center1,2 907.780 TSF
Trips/Unit (Cars) 0.083 0.020 0.103 0.117 0.027 0.144 1.750 Trips/Unit (2‐4 Axle Trucks) 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.009 0.002 0.011 0.162 Trips/Unit (5+ Axle Trucks) 0.009 0.002 0.011 0.008 0.002 0.010 0.217 Trips/Unit (Total) 0.098 0.024 0.122 0.134 0.031 0.165 2.129 Trip Generation (Cars) 75 18 93 106 25 131 1,589
Trip Generation (2‐4 Axle Trucks) 5 2 7 8 2 10 147
Trip Generation (5+ Axle Trucks) 8 2 10 7 2 9 197
Trip Generation (Total Trucks) 13 4 17 15 4 19 344
Trip Generation (Total) 88 22 110 121 29 150 1,933
Trip Generation (Cars) 75 18 93 106 25 131 1,589
PCE Trip Generation (2‐4 Axle Trucks)3 10 4 14 16 4 20 294 PCE Trip Generation (5+ Axle Trucks)3 24 6 30 21 6 27 591 PCE Trip Generation (Total Trucks) 34 10 44 37 10 47 885 PCE Trip Generation (Total) 109 28 137 143 35 178 2,474 Note:

TSF = Thousand Square Feet
1 2
3 Table A ‐ Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Daily
A Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor 2.0 has been taken for 2‐4 axle trucks based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) recommendations. Further, as a conservative approach, a PCE factor of 3.0 is taken, for 5+ axle trucks, consistent with latest practices in numerous California jurisdictions.

Rates from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) TUMF High‐Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, January 2019, prepared by WSP.

R:\SNN2101\TIS\TripGeneration.xlsx\Trip Gen (5/17/2021) 1 Clinton and Marks
Commercial Building
3031 W Clinton Avenue, 3015 W
Clinton Avenue
8,775 sf restaurant, a 4,669 sf car wash building, a 2,200 sf Starbucks cafe with drive thru Please confirm project description. 2 Derrel's Mini Storage West
Belmont Expansion
1800 W Belmont Avenue, 1827 W
Dudley Avenue 6.02‐acre mini‐storage facility Please confirm project description. 3 Soccer, Retail, and Hotel
Project
310 S West Street, 1725 W Nielsen
Avenue, 1730 W Nielsen Avenue
The applicant proposes to develop these parcels into two indoor soccer fields, seven outdoor soccer fields, a 190 room hotel, restaurants, soccer apparel store, and market with gas station.

Please confirm project description. Another description for 3100 S West Avenue is to site, build and operate a Permanent Regional Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility. Another description for 1725 W Nielsen Avenue in the table is that the proposed project pertains to the development of a 16,000 SF industrial shop with office, 7 bays and truck yard with 60 stalls for Dave's Trucking (DISABLED AMERICAN VETERAN ENTERPRISES TRUCKING & SWEEPING, INC.). 4 Bombay Business Park
145 N Fruit Avenue, 147 N Fruit
Avenue, 183 N Fruit Avenue, 227 N
Fruit Avenue, 289 N Fruit Avenue,
662 W Nielsen Avenue
The proposed project site is situated in the old industrial area east of State Route 99 and north of State Route 180 West, lying west of and fronting on North Fruit Avenue, south of the Southern Pacific Rail Road tracks and north of the Houghton Canal.

Please provide number of units for the project (a detailed project description). 5 ABS Auto Auctions 130 S West Avenue
The applicant is proposing the new use of an auto auction dealership. The proposed use will be through an online
bidding system for wholesaling and services made
available only to licensed dealers. The site will store between 30 to 60 cars at a time.

Please provide building square footage.
6 OASIS Tract 5463 3425 W Whites Bridge Avenue ‐ Please provide detailed project description. 7 OASIS Tract 5456 3420 W Madison Avenue ‐ Please provide detailed project description. 8 Tentative Map Tract 6183 3558 W Madison Avenue The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing property into a 66‐lot single‐family subdivision.
9 Tentative Map Tract 6183 3338 W Madison Avenue The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing property into a 18‐lot single‐family subdivision.
10 Truck Wash and Service 294 N Fruit Avenue ‐ Please provide detailed project description. 11 Replacement of a Commercial
Fire Damaged Building 3075 W Nielsen Avenue Replacing a 7,000 sf fire damaged metal building with anew 4,920 sf metal building. 12 KFC ASAP REFRESH 1904 W Olive Avenue ‐ Please provide project name and detailed project description. 13 RNG/CNG Fueling Station 227 N Fruit Avenue, 289 N Fruit Avenue A Renewable Natural Gas (RNG/CNG) fueling station. Please provide detailed project description with number of units. 14 Fresno Mobile Home Park
Expansion 3147 W Olive Avenue ‐ Please provide detailed project description with number of units. 15 Red Onion Drive Thru 555 W Belmont Avenue ‐ Please provide detailed project description. 16 Truck Wash and Lube
Building 125 S Pleasant Avenue 8,100 sf metal building Please provide details about land use. 17 Mixed‐use Project 1824 W Olive Avenue
A 95‐space 15 yr truck parking yard, a 5,000 sf
convenience store with drive thru restaurant, and 6 multi‐ purpose dispensers and car wash tunnel.
18 Renewable Natural Gas (RNG)
Fueling Station 2280 W Whites Bridge Avenue ‐ Please provide detailed project description with number of units. 19 Sandoval Trucking Please provide exact address.

Proposal to build a new 3,750 sf metal building with
1,000 sf attached roof cover, to be used for truck repair (replace tires, brakes, etc.) and to store tools for trucking company.

Please provide exact address and confirm project description. 20 Truck Wash and Repair
Facility ‐
The proposed development is to construct a 5,000 sf
metal building. This metal building will consist of one bay for truck wash and another bay for truck repair, and
roughly 60 sf of reception area.

Please provide exact address.
21 Commercial Project 2809 W McKinley Avenue ‐ Please provide detailed project description with number of units. 22 Royalty Freight Trucking
Service 50 S Hughes Avenue
The applicant is proposing to develop a new 26,143 sf
truck‐service facility for truck repair, lube, wash, a tire repair shop with storage for parts, and offices. This
project will also include a vestibule and covered patio, oil tank, guard kiosk and loading cross pit.

Please confirm project description and number of units. 23 New Metal Office Building 30 E Divisadero Street 3,800 sf general industrial 24 NKRS Trucking ‐
Accela record number P18‐01260 pertains to the
development permit application for a large diesel truck repair facility that specializes in minor maintenance and repair of large diesel trucks.

Please provide exact address and detailed project description with number of units.

Notes:
sf = square feet
Project
No. Project Name Address Project Description Required Information Table B ‐ Cumulative Projects
R:\SNN2101\TIS\Cumulative Project List.xlsx\Cumul Proj Info Req (5/17/2021) 7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 9

FIGURES
ÄÆ180
ÄÆ99

BELMONT AVENUE

NIELSEN AVENUE

OLIVE AVENUE

WHITESBRIDGE AVENUE

MARKS AVENUE

HUGHES AVENUE
Project Location

KEARNEY BOULEVARD
McKINLEY AVENUE
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse
Traffic Impact Study
Regional and Project Location
R:\SNN2101\TIS\GIS\Reports\fig1_Reg_ProjLoc.mxd (4/22/2021) SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2021; Google Earth, 2019.

FIGURE 1
S
!!
N
Madera
County
Fresno
County
Ã145
Ã43
Ã168
Ã180
Ã41
Ã99
Project
Location
Project Vicinity
0 1000 2000
FEET
SOURCE: Lars Anderson and Associates, Inc.; April 2021
N
FEET
R:\SNN2101\TIS\GIS\Reports\fig2_SitePlan.ai (04/29/2021) 0 120 240
FIGURE 2
Conceptual Site Plan
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse
Traffic Impact Study
Project Driveway 5
Project Driveway 4
Project Driveway 2
Project Driveway 3
Project Driveway 6
Project Driveway 1
Project
Driveway 7
!
! !
!
!
!
! BELMONT AVENUE

NIELSEN AVENUE

MARKS AVENUE

HUGHES AVENUE

RAY JOHNSON DRIVE
ÄÆ180
!6
!5
!4
!3
!7 !2
!1
Project Driveway
SOURCE: County of Fresno Streets Data, 2021.

R:\SNN2101\TIS\GIS\Reports\fig3_StudyIntersections.mxd (7/19/2021) FIGURE 3
2740 West Nielsen Warehouse
Traffic Impact Study
Study Area Intersections
S
!!
N
LEGEND
Project Site
! Study Intersection
0 300 600
FEET
 7%
 8%  10%  (23%)
8%    (7%)  33% 
1 611
 (1%)  5%
 (32%)  2%  8%
1%  (2%)  33% 
(6%) 
2 712
  (29%) 
 (15%) 
3 813
 29%
 (5%) 
4 914
  (10%)
1% 
510
FIGURE 4‐A
XX% (YY%)Inbound (Outbound) Distribution 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Driveway Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Distribution ‐ Passenger Vehicles
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2
(29%)
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (5%)
Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue
32%
(23%)
(8%)
6%
Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
(10%)
(10%)
Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
(5%)
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
(23%)
(8%)
(8%)
23%
5%
3%
(31%)
(10%)
32%
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 (1%)
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7
(2%)
2%
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound Ramps
(32%)
15%
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
5%
39%
(10%)
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Dist_PV.xlsx (7/6/2021)
 21%
 21%  25%  (11%)
4%    (21%)  11% 
1 611
 (1%) (10%)   11% 
1%   11% 
2 712
 
 (25%) 
3 813
 3%  (48%)
 (16%) 
4 914

4% 
510
FIGURE 4‐B
XX% (YY%)Inbound (Outbound) Distribution 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Project Driveway Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Distribution ‐ Trucks
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2
(3%)
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue (5%)
(11%)
Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue
10%
(11%)
5%
Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue (25%)
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
(23%)
(4%)
(21%)
23%
7%
(6%)
10%
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson Drive Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 (4%)
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7
(3%)
3%
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound Ramps
(10%)
25%
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
16%
48% 48%
(48%)
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Dist_TR.xlsx (7/6/2021)
 5 / 7
 6 / 8  8 / 11  4 / 6
6 / 8    1 / 2  25 / 35 
1 611
 4 / 6
 6 / 8  2 / 2  6 / 8
1 / 1  0 / 1  25 / 35 
1 / 1 
2 712
  5 / 7 
 3 / 4 
3 813
 21 / 31
 1 / 1 
4 914
  2 / 3
1 / 1 
510
FIGURE 5‐A
XX / YYAM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Assignment ‐ Passenger Vehicles
1 / 2
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 3 / 3
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson DriveMarks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound RampsMarks Avenue/Belmont Avenue 5 / 6
17 / 25
1 / 2
3 / 5
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Belmont AvenueMarks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 2 / 3
29 / 41
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
4 / 6
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
1 / 1
2 / 3
24 / 34
1 / 1
4 / 6
1 / 2
2 / 3
4 / 6
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2 Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7 2 / 2
6 / 7
0 / 1
11 / 16
6 / 8
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
6 / 8
24 / 34
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Asgn_PV.xlsx (7/6/2021)
 7 / 8
 7 / 8  9 / 9  1 / 1
1 / 1  2 / 2  4 / 4 
1 611
 1 / 1   3 / 4 
 4 / 4 
2 712
 
 3 / 3 
3 813
 2 / 2  4 / 4
 2 / 2 
4 914

1 / 1 
510
FIGURE 5‐B
XX / YYAM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Traffic Impact Study
Project Trip Assignment ‐ Trucks
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
1 / 1
4 / 4
1 / 1
9 / 9
16 / 18
1 / 1
5 / 6
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2 Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7 1 / 1 4 / 4
1 / 1
1 / 1
1 / 1
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 1
4 / 4
16 / 18
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
3 / 3
Marks Avenue/Belmont Avenue
2 / 2
8 / 9
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Belmont Avenue
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 2 / 2
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson DriveMarks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound Ramps R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Asgn_TR.xlsx (7/6/2021)
 12 / 15
 13 / 16  17 / 20  5 / 7
7 / 9    3 / 4  29 / 39 
1 611
 7 / 10
 7 / 9   2 / 2  6 / 8
1 / 1  0 / 1   29 / 39 
1 / 1 
2 712
   5 / 7 
 6 / 7 
3 813
 23 / 33  4 / 4
 3 / 3 
4 914
  2 / 3
2 / 2 
510
FIGURE 6
XX / YYAM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (In PCE) 2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Traffic Impact Study
Total Project Trip Assignment
3 / 4
Marks Avenue/SR-180 Eastbound Ramps Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 3 5 / 5
Marks Avenue/Ray Johnson DriveMarks Avenue/SR-180 Westbound RampsMarks Avenue/Belmont Avenue 7 / 8
25 / 34
1 / 2
3 / 5
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Belmont AvenueMarks Avenue/Project Driveway 1 6 / 7
16 / 18
29 / 41
2 / 2
Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 6
4 / 6
Hughes Avenue/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 5/Nielsen Avenue Project Driveway 4/Nielsen Avenue
1 / 1
5 / 6
28 / 38
1 / 1
2 / 2
5 / 7
1 / 2
9 / 12
2 / 3
Marks Avenue/Project Driveway 2 Hughes Avenue/Project Driveway 7 3 / 3
7 / 8
0 / 1
20 / 25
7 / 9
16 / 18
Marks Avenue/Nielsen Avenue
7 / 9
28 / 38
R:\SNN2101\TIS\z45_Asgn_Total.xlsx (7/6/2021)
7/19/2021 (R:\SNN2101\TIS\Scoping\2740 West Nielsen Warehouse Scoping Letter_with_0708_comments.docx) 10

APPENDICES
1 Technical Memorandum
To: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo, Program Manager, WRCOG
From: Billy Park, Supervising Transportation Planner, WSP Subject: TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study Date: January 29, 2019
Background
High-cube warehousing is emerging as an important development type in the Inland Empire. Studies such as Logistics & Distribution: An Answer to Regional Upward Social Mobility1 and Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan2 suggests that this trend is likely to increase over time due to the Inland Empire’s relative abundance of suitable sites compared to coastal counties.

A recurring analytical problem for the analyses of traffic impacts associated with proposed high-cube warehouses is the lack of reliable data regarding the number and vehicle mix of trips generated by this land development type.

Specifically:
• The 2003 Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study, which has been used for years by agencies in the Inland Empire, is based on the older type of high-cube warehouse. Newer warehouses generally are larger (often over 1 million square feet), much more automated, and generate far fewer trips per square foot. • The use of overly-conservative estimates has produced results that were unreasonable when compared to actual field conditions. For example, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Skechers high-cube warehouse building in Moreno Valley included traffic forecasts that were substantially higher than the actual post-construction trip generation for both cars and trucks. Overstated forecasts are misleading to decision makers and could result in oversized infrastructure that could itself have environmental consequences, creates an undue burden on development, and could even have adverse legal consequences for the agencies involved.
• In 2011 the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, also known by its former acronym NAIOP, commissioned a trip generation study of high-cube warehouses focused on large highly-automated warehouses in the Inland Empire. NAIOP had hoped that their study, which found trip-gen rates considerably lower than previous studies, would be used in CEQA analyses going forward. However, concerns about potential bias by the sponsoring party have placed into question the validity of the study results. Similarly, a study commissioned by SCAQMD was viewed as possibly having an anti-development bias.
• Finally, in 2015 NAIOP and SCAQMD jointly sponsored a trip-gen study for high-cube warehouses through a respected neutral party, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The report for this study, HighCube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, was completed in 2016.

The joint NAIOP/SCAQMD/ITE study resulted in a consensus on the trip generation rates to be used for the most common type of high-cube warehouse, a category they call “transload and short-term storage”. The findings of the joint study generally indicated the trip generation rates for this use as being consistent with the trip generation rates for the broader category of high-cube warehouses as described by ITE in the 9th Edition of the Trip

1 Logistics & Distribution: An Answer to Regional Upward Social Mobility, Dr. John Husing for SCAG, June 2004 2 Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan, Wilbur Smith Associates, August 2008 47 2
Generation Manual. However, the report did not settle the issue of trip generation rates for two other specific types of high-cube warehouses:
“The single data points for fulfillment centers and parcel hubs indicate that they have significantly different vehicle trip generation characteristics compared to other HCWs. However, there are insufficient data from which to derive useable trip generation rates.” The purpose of this technical memorandum is to gather sufficient data to develop reliable trip generation rates for fulfillment centers and parcel hubs for use in traffic impact studies in the Inland Empire.

Methodology
Number of Sites: The study team reviewed ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition, Chapter 4 of which describes how to perform a trip generation study that meets ITE’s standards (which improves the defensibility of the results if they are used for CEQA analyses). ITE recommends that at least three sites, and preferably five, be surveyed for a given land use category. Based on the review of candidate sites identified by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) staff, it was recommended that data be collected at a total of 16 sites for the purposes of this study.

Independent Variables: ITE’s Trip Generation Manual measures the size of proposed developments using more than a dozen different independent variables, such as students (for schools), acres (for parks), etc. All High-Cube related categories in both 9th and 10th Editions of the Trip Generation Manual are reported in Square Foot Gross Floor Area (GFA) measured in thousands of square feet (TSF), which is also the independent variable used for the TUMF program. Some other ITE employment categories use employment as the independent variable, as does SCAG in its Sustainable Communities Strategy. WRCOG provided GFA for all sites and employment data for eight fulfillment centers and one parcel hub site.

The ITE Trip Generation Manual typically reports trip generation rates two ways; namely as the average rate and using the “best fit” mathematical relationship between the number of trips generated and the independent variable. R-squared, also known as the coefficient of determination, is used to measure how well the best fit equations match the surveyed traffic counts. The Trip Generation Manual recommends that the best fit equation only be used when the R2 is greater than or equal to 0.50 and certain other conditions being met; otherwise the average rate should be used.

Data Collection
WRCOG provided a list of recommended trip generation study sites after reviewing potential sites within the Inland Empire with its member agencies. The list included 11 fulfillment centers and 5 parcel hub sites as follows:

Fulfillment Centers

1. Walmart: 6750 Kimball Ave, Chino, CA 91708

2. Amazon: 24208 San Michele Rd, Moreno Valley, CA 92551

3. Lineage Logistics: 1001 Columbia Ave Riverside, CA 92507

4. P&G: 16110 Cosmos Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92551

5. Big 5: 6125 Sycamore Canyon Blvd, Riverside, CA 92507

6. Nestle USA: 3450 Dulles Drive, Jurupa Valley, CA

7. Home Depot: 11650 Venture Drive, Jurupa Valley, CA

8. ACT Fulfillment Center: 3155 Universe Drive, Jurupa Valley, CA

9. Petco: 4345 Parkhurst Street, Jurupa Valley, CA

10. Komer: 11850 Riverside Drive, Jurupa Valley, CA

11. Ross: 3404 Indian Ave Perris, CA 92571
48 3
Parcel Hubs

12. UPS: 15801 Meridian Pkwy, Riverside, CA 92518

13. FedEx: 330 Resource Dr, Bloomington, CA 92316

14. FedEx Freight: 12100 Riverside Drive, Jurupa Valley, CA

15. UPS Chain Logistics: 11811/11991 Landon Drive, Jurupa Valley, CA

16. DHL: 12249 Holly St N, Riverside, CA 92509
Traffic counts were collected at all of these sites. These were 72-hour driveway counts collected using video cameras for three-midweek days starting June 26, 2018. Video collection was determined to be preferable to collection data by means of machine counts, which can be problematic for driveways where vehicles are maneuvering at slow speeds. Video counts provide the ability for human viewers to review the captured footage to classify vehicles into 5 types (car, large 2-axle, 3-axle, 4-axle, and 5+ axle truck). The three-day average was calculated and used for the purposes of this study.

Fulfillment Centers
By Building Size
Exhibit 1 displays a data plot of daily vehicle trips for the 11 fulfillment centers against building size as the independent variable. The average trip generation rate for fulfillments centers (see black line in Exhibit 1) was found to be 2.2 trips/TSF, compared to the 1.4 trips/TSF found for conventional high-cube warehouses in the ITE/SCAQMD/NAIOP study (i.e. about 50% higher).

Exhibit 1 denotes one outlier data point representing the Amazon site in the upper right of the chart. As shown, the average daily trips generated at this facility is over 50% higher than the trips generated at the two sites of similar size (Walmart and Ross), which appears indicative of a greater frequency of same day e-commerce deliveries from Amazon to individual consumers.

Exhibit 1: Data Plot for Daily Total Vehicle Trip Ends against Building Size (Fulfillment Center) The best fit equation was an exponential relationship with R2 of 0.60 (i.e. high enough to meet the criteria of acceptability). This is shown as a blue line in Exhibit 1. An exponential relationship, meaning that the larger the y = 358.95e0.0016x
R² = 0.6028
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
T = Daily Average Vehicle Trip Ends
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Exponential Curve (blue), R2= .60
Amazon
49 4
building the higher the trip generation rate, is quite unusual. Exhibit 2 takes a deeper look at this by showing the daily vehicle trip generation rates for each of the 11 surveyed fulfillment centers sorted by the smallest to the largest building size from left to right. As shown, small sites tend to generate fewer trips per thousand square feet, but higher percentage of trucks. On the other hand, largest sites tend to generate a higher number of car trips, but fewer truck trips. So not only is the overall trip generation rate affected by building size, the vehicle mix is affected as well.

Exhibit 2: Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates by Building Size for Each Fulfillment Center Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 show data plots for AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip ends against building size (respectively). The fitted curves had a low R2
, and so we recommend using the average rate.

Exhibit 3: Data Plot for AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends against Building Size (Fulfillment Center) 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
T = AM Peak Hour Average Vehicle Trip Ends
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 Vehicles/Thousand Square Feet
Hvy Trucks Light/Med Trucks Cars
Amazon
Largest sites tend to
generate lots of car
trips but few truck
trips
Small sites generate fewer
trips/sf, but higher % of trucks
50 5
51 6
Exhibit 4: Data Plot for PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends against Building Size (Fulfillment Center) Exhibit 5 compares the average trip generation rates of 11 fulfillment centers with the rates found for conventional transload and short-term storage warehouses in the 2016 high-cube warehouse trip generation study3 by SCAQMD/NAIOP/ITE. As shown, the fulfillment centers generate more daily vehicle trips than conventional warehouse facilities although trucks are roughly the same. This means that the additional trips by fulfillment centers are entirely due to additional car traffic, which is almost double the rate of car trips generated by conventional warehouses.

Exhibit 5: Conventional Warehouse vs Fulfillment Centers Visual observation of the fulfillment center sites indicates the higher trip generation rates for cars appears to be mostly due to the use vans and passenger cars as delivery vehicles, particularly for the larger facilities operated by retailers such as Amazon and Walmart.

3 High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2016

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500
All Vehicles Cars Trucks 5+ Axle Trucks
Vehicles/Thousand Square Feet
Daily Trip-Gen Rate by Vehicle Class
Transload, Short-Term Storage (ITE/NAIOP/SCAQMD) Weighted Average (Current Study) 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
T = PM Peak Hour Average Vehicle Trip Ends
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Amazon
Truck trip-gen rates
about the same as
other high-cube
52 7
Exhibit 6 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour trip rates and the daily rates for fulfillment centers based on the findings of this study, and compares the results to rates for conventional transload and short-term storage warehouses.

Exhibit 6: Summary of Trip Generation Rates per Thousand Square Feet of Gross Floor Area for Fulfillment Centers
By Employee
The WRCOG contacted the surveyed fulfillment centers and obtained employment data for eight of the eleven sites. Exhibit 7 shows a data plot for those eight sites for daily total vehicle trip ends against the number of employees. The best fit equation was logarithmic function which had an R2 of 0.84, indicating a very good fit.

Notably, the Amazon site, which was an outlier for trip generation based on floor area (see Exhibit 1), correlates more closely to other sites when employment is used instead. The average trip generation rate for fulfillments centers (represented by the black line in Exhibit 7) was found to be 2.0 trips/TSF No comparison was made to any previous rates per employees because none of the previous high-cube warehouse related trip generation studies included correlation of trips with employment data.

Exhibit 7: Data Plot for Daily Total Vehicle Trip Ends against Employee (Fulfillment Center) y = 1395.6ln(x) - 6742
R² = 0.8422
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 T = Daily Average Vehicle Trip Ends
X = Number of Employees
Amazon
Conventional
Warehouse*
Fulfillment
Center
Conventional
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Conventional
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Cars 0.057 0.103 0.086 0.144 1.000 1.750
2-4 Axle Trucks 0.009 0.008 0.013 0.011 0.221 0.162
5-Axle Trucks 0.015 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.233 0.217
Total 0.082 0.122 0.108 0.165 1.432 2.129
% Higher than
Conventional 49% 52% 49%
* Transload, Short-Term Storage category in 2016 TIE/ NAIOP/ SCAQMD study AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Vehicle Class
53 8
The data plots for the AM and PM peak hour total vehicle trip ends against the number of fulfillment center employees are shown in Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9. The best fit equations are linear regressions (shown with black lines) which show a good R2 for both the AM and PM peak periods.

Exhibit 8: Data Plot for AM Peak Hour Total Vehicle Trip Ends against Employee (Fulfillment Center) Exhibit 9: Data Plot for PM Peak Hour Total Vehicle Trip Ends against Employee (Fulfillment Center) Exhibit 10 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour trip rates and the daily rates for trip generation per employee at fulfillment centers based on the findings of this study. y = 0.1252x + 35.22
R² = 0.6825
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 T = PM Peak Hour Average Vehicle Trip Ends
X = Number of Employees
y = 0.088x + 35.079
R² = 0.6218
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 T = AM Peak Hour Average Vehicle Trip Ends
X = Number of Employees
Amazon
Amazon
54 9
55 10
Exhibit 10: Summary of Trip Generation Rates per Employee for Fulfillment Centers Parcel Hubs
By Building Size
Exhibit 11 displays daily vehicle trip generation rates by building size for each of five parcel hub sites. They are sorted by the smallest to the largest building size from left to right. In this case the small sites generate significantly more trips of every kind than the larger sites, which is the opposite to the pattern observed for fulfillment centers.

Exhibit 11: Daily Trip Generation Rates at Parcel Hubs
Exhibit 12 shows a data plot of daily vehicle trips of five parcel hubs against building size. As shown, a linear best fit was negative. During the collection of traffic data, construction activity was observed at the FedEx site potentially tainting the validity of these data to represent typical trip generation characteristics. To determine if the trip generation at this site was contributing to the poor data correlation, Exhibit 13 displays the same daily data plot without the FedEx site. The linear best fit shows a positive slope, but remains almost flat effectively indicating no correlation between the daily trips and building size based on the analysis of these sites.

The basic premise of the ITE trip generation approach is that the number of trips generated by a project is proportional to its size. That premise does not hold true for the parcel hubs in this sample and so no meaningful trip generation rates could be determined based on the data collected in support of this study. It should be recognized that a sample size of four or five sites represents the minimum recommended by ITE for valid trip generation studies, and for this reason, it is recommended that additional sites would need to be investigated and included in the data set to develop a more definitive finding on trip generation rates. Furthermore, it may be appropriate to determine the specific function at each site, due to the disparity between the rates observed at the FedEx sites versus the other three sites. It is likely that the function served by the respective sites is significantly different, as reflected in the trip generation rates, thereby necessitating reclassification of these uses for comparative purposes.

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 14.00

16.00 FedEx
Freight
FedEx DHL UPS UPS Chain
Logistics
Vehicles/Thousand Square Feet
Hvy Trucks Light/Med Trucks Cars
Vehicle Class AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Cars 0.102 0.139 1.673
2-4 Axle Trucks 0.006 0.008 0.125
5-Axle Trucks 0.009 0.008 0.178
Total 0.118 0.155 1.977
56 11
57 12
Exhibit 12: Data Plot for Daily Total Vehicle Trip Ends against Building Size (Parcel Hubs) Exhibit 13: Data Plot for Daily Vehicle Trip Ends against Building Size without Construction Site Conclusions
Our survey of 11 fulfillment centers produced trip generation rates based on the gross floor area of the sites that satisfies ITE’s standards for use. The findings of the study indicate that the daily trip generation rates for fulfillment centers is approximately 2.1 trips per thousand square feet of gross floor area, which is roughly 50% higher than the comparable rate for conventional transload and short term storage warehouses previously defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual Version 10. The results of the study further indicate that the higher rates were entirely due to more cars traffic at these sites; the trip generation rates for trucks was found to comparable to those at conventional warehouses.

Employment data were available for eight out of 11 fulfillment center sites. This provided the ability to determine trip generation rates per employee. The study results indicate that that trip generation for fulfillment centers is approximately 2.0 trips per employee. The study also found that the trip generation rate per employee correlated more closely that the trip generation rate per thousand square feet of gross floor area.

UPS
FedEx Freight UPS Chain Logistics
DHL
y = 0.2058x + 1244.6
R² = 0.0493
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
T = Daily Average Vehicle Trip Ends
UPS
FedEx
FedEx Freight UPS Chain Logistics
DHL
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
T = Daily Average Vehicle Trip Ends
Linear Best Fit, R2 = .01
58 13
The data from the five parcel hubs did not show any statistically meaningful relationship between trips and building size. Therefore, no trip generation rate could be calculated. However, the data collected at these sites may provide a useful basis for further comparison with additional sites to provide more data points for analysis. 59 60
Item 7.D
High-Cube Warehouse Calculation
Attachment 2
TUMF Calculation Handbook – High
Cube Warehouse
61 62

1.1. High-Cube Warehouses

1.1.1. Summary
For the purpose of determining the TUMF obligation, all types of high-cube warehouses, including fulfillment centers, transload and short-term storage warehouses and other similar distribution facilities will be considered industrial use types. The methodology outlined in Worksheet A.2.8 and described as follows will be applied to determine the equivalent floor area for high-cube warehouses/fulfillment centers with a minimum gross floor area of 200,000 square feet, a minimum ceiling height of 24 feet and a minimum dock-high door loading ratio of 1 door per 10,000 square feet (for the example calculation assume a high-cube warehouse with a gross floor area of 450,000 square feet, a ceiling height exceeding 24 feet and a dock-high door loading ratio exceeding 1:10,000):

1. Subtract 200,000 square feet from the total gross floor area (i.e. for the example facility it is 450,000 – 200,000 = 250,000 square feet)

2. Multiply the resultant value from step 1 which is total gross floor area in excess of 200,000 square feet by 0.36
(i.e. for the example facility it is 250,000 x 0.36 = 90,000 square feet)

3. Add 200,000 square feet to the resultant value of step 2 (i.e. for the example facility it is 200,000 + 90,000 = 290,000 square feet)

4. Use the resultant value of step 3 as the gross floor area to calculate the TUMF obligation using Worksheet A.2.1 for standard non-residential fee calculations.

The TUMF obligation for a warehouse facility with a gross floor area of less than 200,000 square feet, a ceiling height of less than 24 feet and/or a dock-high door loading ratio of less than 1 door per 10,000 square feet will be calculated based on the actual gross floor area using Worksheet A.2.1 for standard non-residential fee calculations. Furthermore, where other uses such as wholesale showrooms, retail showrooms or office suites are colocated with qualifying high-cube warehouse facilities, only the qualifying warehouse portion of the premises will be calculated using Worksheet A.2.8. The fee obligation for all other co-located facilities will be calculated based on the actual gross floor area and the appropriate land use category using Worksheet A.2.1 for standard non-residential fee calculations.

1.1.2. Detailed Narrative
High-cube warehouses are primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. These facilities typically have a high level of on-site automation and logistics management enable highly-efficient processing of goods through the facility. High-cube warehouses include, but may not be limited to, the following types of facilities:
• High-cube transload and short-term storage facilities typically provide for consolidation and distribution of loads for manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers. 63 Transload and short-term storage facilities typically provide limited storage duration, high throughput and high-efficiency distribution. • Fulfillment centers include high-cube warehouses typically characterized by significant storage and direct distribution of ecommerce products to the end users. These facilities typically handle smaller packages and quantities than other types of high-cube warehouses.
• High-cube parcel hub warehouses typically serve as regional and local freightforwarding facilities of time sensitive shipments via air freight and ground carriers.

These sites may also include truck maintenance, wash, and/or fueling facilities ancillary to the primary use of the site.
• High-cube cold storage warehouses are facilities that provide temperaturecontrolled environments for the storage and distribution of frozen foods or other perishable products.

For the purpose of determining the TUMF obligation, all high-cube warehouses are defined as follows:

Very large shell buildings commonly constructed using steel framed and/or concrete tilt-up techniques with a minimum gross floor area of 200,000 square feet, a minimum ceiling height of 24 feet and a minimum dock-high door loading ratio of 1 door per 10,000 square feet.

In accordance with Section 6.2 and Appendix B of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 2016 Update Final Report (Western Riverside Council of Governments, As Adopted July 10, 2017), high-cube warehouses are considered to be industrial use types with the primary use of the facility generally meeting the description of Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing (SIC Major Category 42). The TUMF obligation for industrial (and all non-residential) land uses is based on the gross floor area of buildings associated with the specific land use and is calculated using Worksheet A.2.1 for standard non-residential fee calculations. However, in the case of high-cube warehouses, vehicle trips generated to and from the site are typically lower than traditional industrial uses due to the high-level of on-site automation and logistics management. For this reason, it is necessary to determine the gross floor area equivalency for the purpose of calculating the TUMF obligation.

A review of Trip Generation 9th Edition (Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2012) indicates the average weekday daily trip generation rate for high-cube warehouses is 1.68 trips per thousand square feet, while the weekday PM peak-hour trip generation rate for the same uses is approximately 0.16 trips per thousand square feet of building area. By comparison, traditional warehouse uses have a weekday daily trip generation rate of

3.56 trips per thousand square feet, and PM peak-hour trip generation rates of 0.45 trips per thousand square feet and 0.58 trips per employee. A study of the trip generation characteristics of fulfillment centers in the Inland Empire of Southern California completed in January 2019 by WSP for the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) found trip generation rates of these facilities to be generally consistent with the rates prescribed in Trip Generation 9th Edition for all high-cube warehouse uses, with an average weekday daily trip generation rate of 2.13 trips per thousand square feet and an average weekday PM peak rate of 0.16 trips per thousand square feet. 64 Table 5.7 summarizes the various characteristics of high-cube warehouses, including trip generation, and establishes the equivalent square feet for the purpose of calculating the TUMF obligation for all high-cube warehouse facilities.

Table 5.7 – Characteristics of High-Cube Warehouses and Distribution Centers Land Use Type
Average Daily
Vehicle Trips
per 1,000 sqft
Average PM
Peak Vehicle
Trips per 1,000
sqft
Average PM
Peak Trips per
Employee
TUMF
Weighted
Equivalent
sqft *
Warehousing (i) (150) 3.56 0.45 0.58
High-Cube Warehouse (i) (152) 1.68 0.16

0.36 Fulfillment Centers (ii) 2.13 0.16 0.16
Warehouse/Distribution Center (iii) 1.10 0.08
All TUMF Industrial Use Types (i) 5.33
Source: (i) Trip Generation 9th Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2012 (ii) TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WRCOG, January 2019 (iii) San Bernardino/Riverside County Warehouse/Distribution Center Vehicle Trip Generation Study, Crain and Associates, January 2005
Note: * - TUMF weighted equivalent square feet based on relative trip generation per 1000 sqft between the average of High-Cube Warehouse and Fulfillment Centers and the median of all TUMF Industrial Uses (consistent with TUMF Nexus Study Trip Generation Rate Comparison).

The gross floor area equivalency for High-Cube Warehouses is based on the average of the trip generation characteristics of High-Cube Warehouse, which is quantified in the Trip Generation 9th Edition in terms of both daily and peak trips per thousand square feet gross floor area, and Fulfillment Centers, which is quantified in the TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study in terms of both daily and peak trips per thousand square feet gross floor area as well as per employees. Based on this information, the simple average daily trip generation rate for a high-cube warehouse, including fulfillment centers, is approximately 1.90 trips per thousand square feet of gross floor area. To account for the variation in trip generation rates between high-cube warehouses, including fulfillment centers, and all TUMF industrial land use types, the gross floor area equivalency was weighted based on the relative trip generation between high-cube warehouses, including fulfillment centers, and the median of all TUMF Industrial Uses as used in the TUMF Nexus Study. The weighted gross floor area equivalency for high-cube warehouses is 0.36.
65 For the purpose of calculating the TUMF obligation for High-Cube Warehouses with a minimum gross floor area of 200,000 square feet, a minimum ceiling height of 24 feet and a minimum dock-high door loading ratio of 1 door per 10,000 square feet, the gross floor area in excess of 200,000 square feet will be multiplied by 0.36 and the resultant value increased by 200,000 square feet to determine the equivalent number of square feet of floor area. The equivalent floor area will be used for the purpose of calculating the TUMF at the rate prescribed by the respective local jurisdictions TUMF Ordinance and supported by the TUMF Nexus Study. For example, a high-cube warehouse with a gross floor area of 450,000 square feet, a ceiling height exceeding 24 feet and a dock-high door loading ratio exceeding 1:10,000 (for the example facility it is at least 45 dock-high door loading bays i.e. 450,000/10,000 = 45) the equivalent floor area would be 290,000 square feet ({[450,000 - 200,000] x 0.36} + 200,000 = 290,000) The TUMF obligation for a warehouse facility with a gross floor area of less than 200,000 square feet, a ceiling height of less than 24 feet and/or a dock-high door loading ratio of less than 1 door per 10,000 square feet will be calculated based on the actual gross floor area using Worksheet A.2.1 for standard non-residential fee calculations. Furthermore, where other uses such as wholesale showrooms, retail showrooms or office suites are colocated with qualifying high-cube warehouse facilities, only the qualifying warehouse portion of the premises will be calculated using Worksheet A.2.8. The fee obligation for all other co-located facilities will be calculated based on the actual gross floor area and the appropriate land use category using Worksheet A.2.1 for standard non-residential fee calculations.

Worksheet A.2.8 High-Cube Warehouse TUMF Calculation Worksheet Enter this value as (part of) the Total
Gross Floor Area of Industrial Buildings
in Worksheet A.2.1
Enter Gross Floor Area
of Qualifying Building(s)
(in square feet)
X 0.36 =
– 200,000 =
Enter Total A
+ 200,000 =
Enter Total B
Total A
Total B
66 Item 7.D
High-Cube Warehouse Calculation
Attachment 3
Trip Generation Study –
Stakeholder comments
67 68
1 Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo
From: Frank Sherkow <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:00 PM
To: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo
Cc: 'Jonathan Shardlow'; Chris Gray; 'Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP'; Matt Englhard Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Attachments: Survey Trip Gen Average-01.16.19_v2.xlsx
Daniel:

Here are some preliminary results from our analysis. As you open the excel file, you will see a summary of facilities sorted by groups that we believe are relevant and as consistent as possible with ITE and sound traffic engineering practices. I will refer to items on this file/tab in this email.

1. We believe that the square footage used in the report for the P&G facility is wrong, and reflects the Floor & Décor company (next door). The real square footage for the P&G facility should be 1,560,046 SF.

2. We conducted a hand-count of the parking spaces using aerial photos from Google Maps.

3. The consultant’s reports refers to the size of facilities’ sites as the driving factor as to whether they are ecommerce (fulfillment) facilities and how much traffic they might generate. The bigger the site the more trips, they say. “Largest sites tend to generate lots of car trips but few truck trips.” The size of the site is NOT the cause for more trips. The auto parking spaces per building SF is the real relationship. It is one of the key factors as to whether the building is/will be e-commerce vs. High Cube Distribution Center. When reviewing a site plan, does it have a large number of auto parking spaces or not? Directly related is also the Total Trips (employees) per 1,000 SF. More goods handling will necessitate more employees, until/unless additional automation comes on the scene.

From our analysis, the group of facilities that were studied actually consists of 5 separate land use types or combinations of land uses:
a. Fulfillment centers (e-commerce) – Walmart (Chino) and Amazon (MV) b. Distribution with Cold Storage (maybe mixed land uses on one site) – Walmart (Columbia Ave.) c. Distribution without Cold Storage – P&G, Big 5, Home Depot, Nestles, Petco, Komar, ACT d. Aggregation Distribution & Handling (probably mixed land uses on one site) – Ross e. Parcel Hubs – FedEx, UPS, DHL
Referring to the spreadsheet column “S”, note the significant differences between sub groups in Total Trips per 1,000 SF (building). True High Cube facilities (Distribution Centers without Cold Storage) will have a small trip rate, because there aren’t as many employees per SF. Due to their efficiency of goods movements (with less handling), the truck traffic compared to all trips is a relatively high percentage for High Cube – see column “N”. These trip rates are similar to those for Transloading or High Cube facilities in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. They are also similar to previous data points collected by ITE and AQMD. They are NOT e-commerce of fulfillment facilities.

We know (from work with AQMD and ITE) that cold storage will have slightly higher trip rates, dependent on the type of goods (frozen vs. perishable). Clearly, the Walmart facility on Columbia Ave. is partially or totally cold storage. There is evidence online about its cold storage function.

The Ross facility (Perris) is a mixture of High Cube and goods handling (but not e-commerce). The trip rates and truck % is evidence of this. Ross’s business model depends on selling goods that have been for sale in other stores. So, the facilities like the one in Perris are used to resort and regroup goods for sale in Ross stores. Thus, there are many more 69 2
employees than at High Cube facilities per SF, but less than an e-commerce building. This mixture is NOT a recognized ITE land use, so we have set it aside.

The only facilities that are acting like true Fulfillment Centers or E-commerce facilities are Amazon (MV) and Walmart (Chino). Note that both of these companies have other facilities that are more like High Cube or Cold Storage, and even Parcel Hub facilities. So, each site should be viewed separately. See column “N” for the small proportion of truck trips vs. total trips. Also see column “S” to compare the higher total trip rates compared to High Cube Distribution Centers (similar for column “Q”).

For purposes of establishing traffic impacts or development fees, the group of facilities that the consultant studied does NOT represent Fulfillment Centers. This is also reinforced by the data plot diagrams from the consultant’s report.

The other item of note is that true e-commerce facilities are a relatively small portion of the warehouses built or being developed. Even when a facility uses the label of “fulfillment center,” it does not mean that it functions as, or has the necessary characteristics of, a true e-commerce facility.

In reference to Parcel Hubs, these facilities are different from other warehouse facilities in size, shape, height, and design. Thus, they can easily be identified as a separate group for your purposes.

We welcome your questions or comments. We hope you will share this information with members of the Public Works Committee.

Franklin E. Sherkow, P.E., T.E., P.S.E., Env SP, F.ASCE Executive Vice President
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
949-500-7878
70 1
Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo
From: Frank Sherkow <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 3:46 PM
To: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo
Cc: 'Jonathan Shardlow'; Chris Gray; 'Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP' Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Daniel:

Thanks for the quick response.

On the P&G building, here is what we had in our data:

Tenant Address Line 1 City Building Total
SF
Building Dock High
Doors
Orignial
Database -
Parking
Stalls
Floor & Décor 24101 Iris Avenue Moreno
Valley
1,103,003 166 400
P&G 24015 Iris Avenue Moreno
Valley
1,560,046 268 862
I believe that someone has used the Floor & Decor square footage for the P&G building in your excel spreadsheet. Can you clarify?
Are you aware of any transit usage to these site? Any signs of significant ridesharing at any of these sites? The reason I ask, is that when you take each site’s daily traffic flow and divide by the number of employees, the results are very puzzling in some cases. Don’t know if you really care about the employment levels, but they should be within reason ranges.

Franklin E. Sherkow, P.E., T.E., P.S.E., Env SP, F.ASCE Executive Vice President
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
949-500-7878
From: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 9:34 AM
To: Frank Sherkow
Cc: 'Jonathan Shardlow'; Chris Gray; 'Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP' Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Good morning Frank,
The employment numbers were provided by the agencies in which the sites are located.

We have also provided responses to your previous questions on two sites as shown below:

1. For the P&G site, the physical address is shown as 24015 Iris Ave, Moreno Valley, CA 92551. The driveways were selected based on the building called out in the aerial photo below. Cosmos Street is an internal road of the same property as shown in the aerial photo.
71 2

2. The below is a street view from Riverside Drive to the shared driveway of Komar (building on the left) and Damco (on the right). As shown, the access from Damco (on the right) to the shared driveway is prohibited. Komar does the same for the northern aisle (on the
left).

For reference, all traffic counts were collected with video cameras. -Daniel
Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo
Program Manager
Western Riverside Council of Governments
3390 University Ave., Suite 450
Riverside, CA 92501-3315
72 3
Phone: (951) 405-6712
www.wrcog.us
"Respect Local Control...Provide Regional Perspective”
From: Frank Sherkow <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 11:52 AM
To: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Jonathan Shardlow' <[email protected]>; Chris Gray <[email protected]>; 'Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Daniel:

Thanks for the update.

A few items. We know from our work on development activities and working with tenants, plus our work on traffic impact studies, that the employment levels at these (and most other sites) fluctuates based on a regular seasonal pattern. Since the traffic counts appear have been gathered in Aug. 2018, we understand that this would represent an off-peak season period. This period last about 10 months during the year, but can vary based on local circumstances.

Can you tell us how you determined the employment numbers from your spreadsheet? Based on our very preliminary work on the information from the consultant’s report and other data that we possess (omitting the parcel hubs for the time being), it appears that there is a mixture of High Cube, E-commerce, and Cold Storage facilities in the list provided (11 sites). Some individual sites may have a mixture of several of these land uses, and therefore, in our opinion, would not be good candidates for this type of analysis. They don’t have a pure representation of any of the recognized ITE land uses, thus, it would be difficult to apply the trips rates (and other factors) to a broader analysis or draw generalized conclusions about this sites.

When AQMD and NAIOP conducted similar studies, we always made sure of two things: 1. The sites were as pure a representative land uses as possible (not a mixture, like cold storage and high cube), and 2. The site possess driveways that could be isolated for traffic counts.

Unfortunately, some of these facilities, from your list, violate one or both of these criteria.

We are continuing to dig, so stay tuned. Thanks.

Franklin E. Sherkow, P.E., T.E., P.S.E., Env SP, F.ASCE Executive Vice President
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
949-500-7878
From: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 11:26 AM
To: Frank Sherkow
Cc: 'Jonathan Shardlow'; Chris Gray; 'Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP' Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Hi Frank,
73 4
Thank you for your comments on WRCOG’s High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study with regard to use of the facilities in the study to represent e-commerce trip rates.

We wanted to give you some further background on the study, why we did it, and how the study was performed.

Back in 2017 the Nexus Study was approved, we received some broad direction from our Executive Committee to look into the issue of whether the Nexus Study and the TUMF Program accurately reflects impacts associated with industrial uses. There was some limited direction provided to Staff to look at different industrial uses such parcel hubs, distribution centers, etc. given the perception that these uses generate more trips than typical industrial or high-cube uses.

We convened a working group of local agency staff who recommended a series of locations they were familiar with and also worked with a consultant (WSP) to identify facilities that could be classified as either a distribution center or a parcel hub.

After that, we collected data for each of the sites and summarized the data. We then presented the information to first our working group and then our Public Works Committee to get their feedback. They also recommended that we not have a separate category for these types of uses.

We will be reaching out to WSP to provide a detailed response with respect to the questions below. As requested we are including the worksheet with the data from each facility.

We would be happy to answer any additional questions that you have regarding the work that we’ve done and will be doing in the future.

Thank you,
-Daniel
Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo
Program Manager
Western Riverside Council of Governments
3390 University Ave., Suite 450
Riverside, CA 92501-3315
Phone: (951) 405-6712
www.wrcog.us
"Respect Local Control...Provide Regional Perspective”
From: Frank Sherkow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 3:36 PM
To: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Jonathan Shardlow' <[email protected]>; Chris Gray <[email protected]>; 'Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Daniel:

Two preliminary questions:

1. Floor & Décor with an address of 24101 Iris and P&G with an address of 16110 Cosmos Street in MV. The traffic sheets and report says that the P&G facility was studied at 24015 Iris Ave. Can you clarify?

2. The Komar facility shares a driveway with a neighboring distribution center (Damco) onto Riverside Dr. What steps were taken to isolate the Komar traffic from other? 74 5
Franklin E. Sherkow, P.E., T.E., P.S.E., Env SP, F.ASCE Executive Vice President
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
949-500-7878
From: Frank Sherkow [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 10:07 AM
To: 'Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo'
Cc: 'Jonathan Shardlow'; 'Chris Gray'; 'Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP' Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Daniel:

Thanks so much for your quick response. We stand ready to work with you on this important matter.

In the meantime, we will start to examine the traffic counts provided. Perhaps, we will have some comments in the near future.

Franklin E. Sherkow, P.E., T.E., P.S.E., Env SP, F.ASCE Executive Vice President
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
949-500-7878
From: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:40 AM
To: Frank Sherkow
Cc: Jonathan Shardlow; Chris Gray; Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP Subject: RE: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Good morning Frank,
We will begin reviewing your comments and will respond accordingly. However, we wanted to ensure you receive the data requested. Per your request, we are attaching the spreadsheets with the counts taken in summer 2018.

Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, -Daniel
Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo
Program Manager
Western Riverside Council of Governments
3390 University Ave., Suite 450
Riverside, CA 92501-3315
Phone: (951) 405-6712
www.wrcog.us
"Respect Local Control...Provide Regional Perspective”
75 6
From: Frank Sherkow <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 3:05 PM
To: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Shardlow <[email protected]>; Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., AICP <[email protected]>
Subject: E-Commerce Trip Generation Rates
Daniel:

I am writing to you concerning the Dec. 13, 2018 staff report about the High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study and possible adjustments related to E-commerce facilities. To give you a bit of history, I represented NAIOP when the original High Cube fee levels were set. We continue to do consulting work for NAIOP and some of their members.

I have read your consultant’s report about E-commerce facilities. The staff report states that, “The Trip Generation Study was conducted in a manner that meets the ITE standards for performing studies of this nature.” Although the traffic counts may have done in accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the facilities selected and definitions for the E-commerce facilities do not seem to done in accordance with the ITE recent work on this issue.

I have attached a recent working prepare (referred to on page 2 of your staff report). Note that the ITE working paper refers to definitions for many of the large warehouse facilities, which I authored for ITE, with support of NAIOP members. There are physical site and buildings differences between the warehouse categories.

Having said that, not all E-commerce facilities are the same. For example, Amazon facilities may be “sort”, “non-sort”, “cross-dock”, or some hybrids. My firm has done extensive traffic work on High Cube and E-commerce facilities in the Inland Empire. Some of these E-commerce facilities operate like High Cube facilities, while others have higher trip generation rates due to higher employee activities.

One major note of concern: Using the label, by the consultant, as “Fulfillment Centers” is most probably NOT ACCURATE.

The trip rates and parking capacity at some of these sites are significant indicators that some of these facilities are true High Cube buildings that feed local retail outlets, and not the end-customer. Even if the establishment uses the name “fulfillment center” in the title, it does not make them true E-commerce facilities for trip rates purposes.

Grouping these particular facilities together as a representation of E-commerce trip rates is not correct.

We would be glad to work with you, on behalf of NAIOP, to ensure that WRCOG has the most recent and correct information. We are glad to hear that, the WRCOG “staff is not recommending the inclusion of a separate component of the TUMF Calculation Handbook for fulfillment centers.” However, as you explore possible adjustments to the TUMF fee program, NAIOP would like the opportunity to correct the record about this data and give WRCOG better information about this issue.

In the meantime, we would formally request the electronic spreadsheets with the actual traffic counts for the 16 facilities mentioned in the study. Please advise. Thanks.

Franklin E. Sherkow, P.E., T.E., P.S.E., Env SP, F.ASCE Executive Vice President
Southstar Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
949-500-7878
76 Item 7.E
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Public Works Committee
Staff Report
Subject: TUMF Calculation Handbook Revisions
Contact: Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo, Program Manager, [email protected], (951) 405-6712

Date: February 14, 2019
The purpose of this item is to present several proposed minor revisions to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Calculation Handbook and request input on additional revisions from the Committee.

Requested Actions:

1. Recommend that the Executive Committee approve the proposed revisions to the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook to include clarification language on the 3,000 square foot deduction policy for retail and service uses.

2. Discuss and provide input on proposed clarification to the issuance of credit for existing uses for the exemption outlined in the TUMF Administrative Plan.

WRCOG’s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program is a regional fee program designed to provide transportation and transit infrastructure that mitigates the impact of new growth in Western Riverside County. Each of WRCOG’s member jurisdictions and the March JPA participates in the Program through an adopted ordinance, collects fees from new development, and remits the fees to WRCOG. WRCOG, as administrator of the TUMF Program, allocates TUMF to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), groupings of jurisdictions – referred to as TUMF Zones – based on the amounts of fees collected in these groups, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook details the methodology for calculating the TUMF obligation for different categories of new development and, where necessary, clarifies the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF Ordinances.

As part of the annual review of TUMF Program documents, staff has identified several items to be added or modified in the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook.
3,000 Square Foot Deduction Policy
On August 7, 2017, the Executive Committee approved a 3,000 square foot (SF) deduction for all service and retail land use types. Since approval of the policy on August 7, 2017, most project applicants are not required to pay TUMF fees on the first 3,000 SF of retail and service projects. This policy benefits both new uses and existing uses that are expanding their operation to provide more economic development in the region. Staff have also interpreted this policy to include Class A and Class B office buildings, to each independent tenant space of a multi-tenant building, and to all defined land uses in the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook.

On October 1, 2018, the Executive Committee approved an update to the 3,000 SF deduction to retail and service TUMF land uses that limits the reduction to development projects that are less than 20,000 SF, effective immediately. This means that a retail / service project that is 19,999 SF would receive the 3,000 SF deduction but a 20,000 SF retail / service project would not receive the 3,000 SF deduction. 77 There is currently no specific language in the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook or any of the TUMF governing documents detailing how the 3,000 SF deduction policy is to be implemented. Staff have proposed clarifying language for addition to the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook and has added a line in Worksheet A.2.1 for standard, non-residential TUMF calculations to provide guidance on administration of the 3,000 SF deduction.

These proposed updates to the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook are included as an attachment to this Staff Report.

Credit for Existing Uses
The TUMF Program contains an exemption for the reuse / reconstruction of existing buildings and the language in the TUMF Administrative Plan is as follows:
“The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof” There is currently no official calculation methodology to guide staff in implementation of this exemption. Staff currently calculate credits for existing uses utilizing the fees and policies currently in effect. Staff is requesting input from the Public Works Committee (PWC) on the following two proposed implementation strategies for potential inclusion in the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook:
• Option 1: Calculate credit based on the fees in effect at the time that the building was last in use, no earlier than January 1, 2000. This would mean that a credit would be awarded on the full building square footage for existing uses that were in place prior to introduction of the 3,000 SF deduction policy in August 2017; or • Option 2: Continue calculating credits for existing uses based on the current fee schedules and calculation policies, including the 3,000 SF deduction.

The developer and/or member agency would continue to be responsible for providing documentation showing that the building was in use and occupied after January 1, 2000, to receive credit. If the PWC elects to move forward with Option 1, the developer and/or member agency would also be required to provide documentation of termination of use after January 1, 2000, in order to have credit calculated based on a previous fee schedule and calculation policy. If insufficient documentation is provided, credit would be awarded using the fees and policies currently in place.

Next Steps
Staff is requesting input from member agencies on the potential addition to the TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook to clarify application of the 3,000 SF deduction policy. Once staff has direction on allocating credit for existing uses, draft language will be brought to the PWC for possible recommendation to the Executive Committee for action.

Prior Action:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

Transportation Department activities are included in the Agency’s adopted FY 2018/2019 Budget under the Transportation Department.

Attachment:

1. 3,000 SF Deduction Revisions for Fee Calculation Handbook. 78 Item 7.E
TUMF Calculation Handbook
Revisions
Attachment 1
3,000 SF Deduction Revisions for Fee
Calculation Handbook
79 80

1.1. 3,000 Square Foot Reduction for Retail and Service TUMF Land Uses

1.1.1. Summary
On August 7, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee implemented a policy of waiving the TUMF obligation for the first 3,000 square feet (SF) of gross floor area for all service and retail land uses due to concerns raised during the 2016 Nexus Study update over the impact of TUMF on retail uses. On October 1, 2018, the WRCOG Executive Committee updated the provisions of this policy to limit the fee reduction to only those retail and service land uses that have a total gross floor area of less than 20,000 SF.

1.1.2. Implementation
The policy enacted in August 2017 and updated in October 2018 provides a waiver from the TUMF obligation for the first 3,000 SF of gross floor area for new retail and service development projects as well as expansions to existing retail and service land uses where the net increase in the total gross floor area of the building(s) will be less than 20,000 SF.

As such, no TUMF is paid on retail or service projects that increase the total gross floor area of the building(s) by less than 3,000 SF, and the gross floor area used as the basis to determine the fee obligation is reduced by 3,000 SF for retail or service projects that increase the total gross floor area of the building(s) by more than 3,000 SF but less than 20,000 SF. For the purposes of this policy, Class A/B offices are considered Service uses.

For mixed-use projects or projects with multiple tenants, the 3,000 SF reduction would apply to each individual use or each individual tenant to the extent that each tenant is operating independently of one another, and each is viewed as separate uses. This deduction is applied at the time of TUMF fee assessment and is based on the building as shown on plans at that time. Therefore, if a building is subdivided after TUMF fees are paid, TUMF would not be refunded.

1.1.3. Background
In response to concerns raised during the 2016 Nexus Study update, WRCOG staff undertook a study of several mid-size shopping centers in the subregion. Results from this study show that these shopping centers are generally anchored by a large tenant, typically occupying a space over 20,000 SF, and that these large spaces are surrounded by a number of smaller tenant spaces. The larger spaces are commonly occupied by large retailers such as grocery stores, clothing stores, and supermarkets; however, smaller tenant spaces are more commonly occupied by restaurants, beauty salons, dental offices, or electronics shops. Whereas the larger spaces may create a regional traffic draw, these smaller uses are generally more local-serving. For example, a new 200,000 SF retail super center may draw traffic from adjacent jurisdictions, as there may be a limited number of these retailers in the region. However, the smaller uses, such as a beauty salon or dental office, are generally located in every jurisdiction and will not likely create a large regional draw. Thus, even if a smaller use does generate additional traffic, this traffic will generally be local (i.e., new drive-through coffee shop locations, as there are numerous locations throughout the region).
81 A.2 Fee Calculation Worksheets for Non-Residential Use Types Worksheet A.2.1 Standard Non-Residential TUMF Calculation Worksheet ☐ 3,000 SF Deduction Awarded (Total SF: _____________; Adjusted SF: _____________) August 7, 2017 the WRCOG Executive Committee approved a 3,000 SF deduction for all service and retail TUMF land use types.

October 1, 2018 the WRCOG Executive Committee approved a revision to the 3,000 SF reduction policy for retail and service uses to limit this reduction to projects that are less than 20,000 SF.

Enter Total A
+
Enter Total B
= $
Enter Total Gross Floor
Area of Industrial Buildings
(in square feet)
Enter TUMF Industrial
Rate Per Square Foot
=
Enter Total Gross Floor
Area of Retail Buildings
(in square feet)
X
Enter TUMF Retail Rate
Per Square Foot
=
Enter Total Gross Floor
Area of Service Buildings
(in square feet)
X
Enter TUMF Service
Rate Per Square Foot
=
X
TUMF Obligation
+
Enter Total C
Total A
Total B

1. 2.

3. 4.

Total C
82 Fresno COG 2019 Travel Model - Passenger Car Select Zone Distribution (West Neilsen Industrial) (Licensed to LSA Associates Inc)
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0

0.1 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0. 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0.1
0 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.1

0.1 0
0 0.1

0.1 0.1
0 0.1
0 0.2

0.2 0

0.1 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1 0

0.1 0 0.2
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0

0.2 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0

0.2 0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0

0.1 0
0 0.2
0 0 0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0

0.3 0
0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.6 0
0 0 0 0

0.3 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1 0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0

0.4 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0.2 0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0 0.1
0 0

0.2 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.2 0

0.7 0
0 0
0 0.2

0.3 0
0 0.1

0.1 0.3
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0

0.3 0.1
0 0

0.2 0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0

0.1 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0.1
0 0
0 0

0.1 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.2
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0

0.3 0
0 0
0 0.4 0

0.4 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.3 0

0.1 0.2
0 0

0.3 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0

0.1 0.1
0 0.2

0.2 0.1
0 0

0.1 0 0
0 0.4 0

0.1 0.6
0 0
0 0

0.3 0
0 0.4
0 0
0 0.2

0.2 0
0 0.3
0 0
0 0.7
0 0
0 0.5
0 0
0 0.3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1

0.1 0.6
0 0
0 0.6
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0

0.3 0

0.2 0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.4
0 0
0 0.5
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0.2
0 0
0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0

0.1 0.1 0
0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0 0
0 0
0 0

0. 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.1

0.1 0.2
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.3 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.2 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0.1 0

0.2 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0.1

0.2 0

0.2 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 SR 168/180 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.2
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0.3
0 0
0 0
0 0.3
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.2 0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1 0
0 0
0 0.2
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.3
0 0.1
0 0.1 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0

0.1 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0.2
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.2 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0.2

0.1 0
0 0
0 0.3

0.2 0
0 0.2
0 0

0.1 0

0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0.2
0 0.1

0.1 0.1
0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0.1

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0.2
0 0
0 0

0.4 0
0 0
0 0.4
0 0.2

0.2 0.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.2
0 0

0.1 0.2

0.1 0

0.1 0
0 0

0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.2

0.1 0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0

0.3 0.1

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.3 0.5
0 0
0 0

0.5 0
0 0.5
0 0.1
0 0
0 0.4

0.3 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0 0
0 0.4
0 0.4
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0.2
0 0.3

0.2 0
0 0.1
0 0.2
0 0
0 0.3
0 0
0 0.3 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.4
0 0
0 0.6
0 0
0 0.4
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.3
0 0
0 0
0 0.9

1.2 0.1
0 0

0.5 0
0 0
0 0

0.5 0

0.1 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.1 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0.1
0 0

0.1 0
0 0.1
0 0
.1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

0.2 0
0 0.1
0 0
0 0

0.1 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

56.8 43.2
0 Butler
0 M ni newawa
0 Butler
0 Cedar

0.9 Jensen
0 Cornelia
0 Cornelia
0 Shaw
0 1.3

1.6 SR 168 1.5
Shaw/168

3.1 SR 168

1.1 Shaw
0 0
1 0.4

0.2 Shaw
0 Cornelia

0.3 Belmont
0 Olive
0 Cornelia
0 0
Cornelia
0 Jensen
0 Jensen
0 Cornelia

0.1 Jensen
0 Church
0 Cornelia
0 Cornelia
0 Church

0.3 Belmont

0.3 Belmont
0 Olive

0.7 Hayes
0 Hayes
1 Belmont

0.7 Hayes
0 Olive

0.1 Olive

0.6 Hayes
0 California
0 California
0 Cornelia
0 Cornelia
0 0
0 0
Cornelia
0 0
Cornelia
0 Kearney
0 California
0 0
Cornelia

1.6 SR 180
0 Cornelia

1.6 SR 180
0 Blythe

1.6 SR 180

1.6 SR 180
0 Blythe
0 Olive
0 Olive
0 Olive

0.4 Polk

0.8 Olive

0.8 Olive 0.8
Olive
0 Cornelia

1.9 Cornelia
3 Belmont

1.1 Belmont
0 Blythe
0 Blythe 0
B yl the
0 Blythe

0.5 Blythe

3.1 3.7
Belmont

1.1 Cornel ai
0 Olive

1.9 Cornelia

1.1 Cornel ai

1.1 1.1
Cornelia
0 Olive

0.5 Blythe
0 Olive

0.5 Blythe

0.5 Blythe 0.2
Blythe

0.1 McKinley
0 Clinton

0.1 Shields
2 aw

0.1 Bryan

0.2 McKinley

0.1 Bryan

0.2 McKinley
0 Clinton

0.1 Bryan
0 Clinton

0.2 Shields
0 Bryan

0.1 Bryan

0.1 Shields
0 Clinton
0 McKinley

0.6 Hayes

0.4 Hayes
0 McKinley
0 McKinley
0 Clinton

0.3 Hayes

0.1 Hayes
0 Shields

0.3 Hayes

0.2 Shields
0 Clinton

0.1 Bryan

0.1 Bryan
0 Bryan
0 Ashlan
0 Ashlan

0.1 Hayes
0 Dakota 0.1
Hayes

0.1 Hayes

0.1 Ashlan

0.1 Hayes
0 Ashlan
0 Hayes
0 Hayes

0.4 Ashlan

0.4 Ashlan
0 0

0.2 Polk
0 0
McKinley

0.2 Po kl 0.4
Polk

0.2 Polk
0 McKinley
0 Clinton

0.2 Polk
0 0
Shields

0.2 Polk

0.4 Polk

0.2 0
Shields

0.7 Cornelia

0.8 Cornel ai

0.1 McKinley

0.8 Cornelia

0.8 0.7
Cornelia

0.7 Cornelia

0.5 0.5

0.2 Blythe 0.1
Blythe

0.4 McKinley

0.5 McKinley
0 Blyth
0 e
.1
Blythe
0 Blythe

0.7 0
0 Clinton

0.7 Cornelia
0 Shields

0.2 Shields

0.4 Cornel ai

0.2 Cornelia

0.2 0.5
Clinton
0 Clinton

0.5 Clinton

0.5 0.5

0.1 B yl the
0 Blythe

0.4 Clinton
0 Blythe
0 0
Blythe
0 Blythe

0.1 Shields
0 Blythe 0
Blythe
0 0 0
Blythe 0
Blythe

0.1 Shields

0.1 Polk

0.1 Po
0 lk
.1
Polk

0.1 Polk

0.1 Polk
Polk

0.1 0.1
Polk

0.1 Polk
0 Dakota

0.2 Polk

0.2 Polk
0 Dakota
0 Dakota
0 0.2
Polk
0 Polk
0 Polk
0 Polk
0 Polk
0 Polk

0.2 Ashlan

0.3 Ashlan
0 Polk
0 Polk
0 0 0
Polk
0 Polk
0 0
Polk
0 Polk

0.2 Ashlan

0.1 Ashlan

0.2 Cornelia 0.2
Cornelia
0 Dakota

0.2 Cornelia
0 Dakota

0.2 Cornelia

0.2 0.2
Cornelia

0.2 Cornelia
0 0
Blythe
0 Blythe
0 Dakota
0 Dakota

0.1 Blythe

0.1 Dakota

0.1 Blythe

0.2 0.2
Cornelia

0.8 Ashlan

0.1 Ashlan

0.8 Cornelia 0
Cornelia

0.8 0.8

0.8 Ashlan

0.4 Ashlan

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Cornelia

0.8 Ashlan
0 Blythe

0.8 Ashlan

0.7 Ashlan

0.7 Ashlan
0 Bryan
0 Bryan
0 Bryan

0.2 Shaw

0.3 Shaw
0 Hayes

0.4 Shaw

0.4 Shaw
0 Polk
0 Po
0 lk
Po kl

0.1 Po kl

0.1 Po kl 0.1
Fairmont

0.3 Po kl
0 Parkway Dr

0.4 Shaw

0.3 Po kl
0 Shaw/SR 99 1
Shaw

0.4 Parkway

1.1 Shaw/99
1 1.1

1.1 Shaw/99

0.6 Shaw/SR 99
0 1

0.5 1 10.5
Shwa/99
0 Parkway Dr
1 S
.7
R 99
1 SR 99

0.5 0.5
Shaw

0.5 0.5
Shaw
0 Shaw

0.2 0
0 Shaw

0.5 Shaw

1.6 olden Stat 0.5
Shaw

1.6 Golden Stat

0.6 2.8

1.1 0.6
Shaw

2.8 Golden Stat

0.6 Shaw

1.1 Shaw 1.1

1.1 1
Gates
0 Shaw

0.6 Blythe

0.1 Shaw
1 Marks

0.1 West
0 Elm

0.1 Brawley
0 Jensen
0 Brawley

0.1 Brawley

0.1 Church
0 Jensen

0.1 Valentine

0.1 Jensen
0 Jensen

0.1 Valentine 0
Church

0.2 Valentine

0.1 Church
0 Church

1.1 Marks

1.1 0

1.1 Marks
0 North
0 North

1.1 Marks
0 Annadale
0 0

1.1 Marks
0 Church

1.3 Marks

1.3 Marks
0 Church
0 Church
0 Hughes
0 Brawley
0 Brawley
0 California
00 0
0 Brawley
0 Kearney
0 Kearney
0 Brawley

0.8 SR 180 0.2
Brawley
0 Kearney

0.2 Valentine
0 California

0.2 Valentine

0.1 California
0 0.3
Valentine

0.3 Valentine
0 Kearney

0.4 Whites Brid
0 Valentine

0.1 Whites Brid

0.2 Brawley

0.3 Neilsen

0.1 Brawley

0.1 0
Brawley

2.3 Brawley

6.1 Belmont

3.8 Belmont
0 Olive
0 Olive

2.3 Brawley
0 Olive

2.3 Brawley

0.4 Neilsen

0.4 Neilsen
0 Valentine
0 Valentine

0.4 Neilsen
0 Olive 0.1
Olive

0.8 Valentine

7.2 0.8 0.8
Valentine

0.8 Valentine
0 Olive

0.8 Valentine

0.1 0.1

0.1 0
California

1.3 Marks

0.1 0
Kearney

1.4 Marks

0.8 1.4
Marks 0.8 1.2

0.1 Whites Brid

1.9 Marks
0 Hughes
0 California
0 California
0 Hughes
0 Hughes
00 0
Kearney
0 Kearney
0 Hughes
0 California

0.2 Kearney
0 Hughes
0 Whites Brid
0 Whites Brid

0.2 Whites Brid

0.2 4.6
Marks

42.9 Neilsen

4.6 Marks

7.5 Belmont

7.2 Belmont

0.4 Olive

0.4 Belmont

2.6 Marks

5.4 Marks 2.6
Marks

2.6 Marks

0.4 Belmont

0.1 Olive

2.6 Marks

2.1 Marks

5.7 Hughes

5.7 13.3
Hughes 7.5
Neilsen
0 Neilsen

43.5 Hughes

42.9 42.9
Hughes

7.5 Neilsen

0.4 1.2

1.2 Belmont

25.2 Hughes

16.7 Belmont

25.2 Hughes
24 Hughes

0.5 Olive

0.1 Olive

0.5 Olive
24 24
Hughes
13 Hughes

10.5 Olive
13 Hughes
13 Hughes

16.7 Belmont

16.7 Belmont
0 16.7 16.7
Belmont

10.1 Olive

10.1 0
Olive/SR99

6.2 Olive

3.8 Olive/SR99

0.4 SR 99

4.3 SR 99

0.4 SR 99

4.3 SR 99

0.1 West

0.1 West
0 North
0 North

0.1 West

0.1 Fruit

0.1 North
0 North

0.1 Fruit

0.1 North

0.6 Jensen
0 Jensen

0.1 West

0.7 West

0.8 West
0 Church

1.2 West

0.4 Church

1.5 West

0.4 Church
0 Annadale

0.1 Fruit 0.4
Jensen

0.6 Jensen
0 Fruit

0.2 Fruit

0.4 Jensen
0 Annadale

0.4 Jensen

0.3 Church
0 Fruit

0.1 Fruit
0 Fruit
0 Fruit
0 Fruit
0 Fruit

0.3 Church

0.3 Church
0 Walnut

0.1 North
0 Walnut

0.1 North

0.1 0
Fig

0.1 0.1
M.L. King
0 0
North
0 0 0 0
M.L. King
0 0 0 0
0 0
North
0 North
0 North
0 0
Elm 0
North

0.1 Annadale

0.1 Walnut
0 Walnut 0.3
Jensen

0.2 Walnut
0 Walnut 0
Walnut

0.3 Jensen

0.1 Annadale 0

0.1 Annadale
0 M.L. King
0 0
0 0.1
Jensen
0 M.L. King
0 0 0 0.1 Jensen

0.2 Jensen 0
M.L. King
0 M.L. King
0 0
Walnut

0.1 Walnut 0.3Church
0 Walnut

0.3 Church

0.3 Church
0 Walnut
0 Walnut
0 Walnut

0.3 Church
0 0.2
M.L. King

0.2 0.2
M.L. King
0 M.L. King
0 Church

0.3 Church
0 M.L. King

0.1 M.L. King

0.1 Jensen

0.2 Jensen
0 Jensen

0.2 Jensen
0 Annadale
0 Annadale
0 Elm
0 0
Elm
0 Jensen
0 Jensen
0 Elm
0 0
Elm 0
Jensen
0 0
Jensen
0 0
Elm
0 Jensen
0 Church
0 Church
0 Church
0 Church
0 0.1
E
. 0
lm
1 Elm
0 0
Church
0 Elm
0 Church
0 Elm
0 0
E
0 lm
Elm

0.1 Elm
0 California

1.5 West 0
California
West

1.5 1.5
West

1.5 West

0.8 West
0 Eden

0.7 West

1.8 Kearney

3.5 West
0 0
0 California
0 Teilman 0
California
0 Teilman
0 Teilman
0 Teilman
0 0
California
0 Eden

0.7 Teilman

0.7 Teilman
0 1.8

0.7 Teilman
0 1.1
Kearney
0 0
Teilman

1.9 Hughes\West

1.9 Whites Brid

1.9 0
Teilman

0.3 Amador

0.1 Teilman

0.1 Teilman
0 Fruit
0 California 0
California

1.1 Kearney

0.8 0.9
Thorne

0.8 California
0 0.9 0.9 0.9
Thorne

0.9 Thorne

0.8 0
Fresno
Fr
0 esno
0 Fresno
0 Fresno

0.9 Thorne 0
Eden0.9
Thorne

0.9 Thorne
0 0.2
Kearney
0 Thorne
0 Eden
0 Eden
0 0
Trinity
0 0.2
Kearney
0 0
Kearney

0.3 Amador

1.5 Whites Brid

0.3 Amador

1.5 Whites Brid
0 Thorne
0 Thorne
0 0.4 0.4 0.4
Thorne

0.4 Thorne
0 Modoc 0
0 Modoc

0.2 Thorne 0
Amador
0 Thorne 1.5
0 Thorne
0 Amador

1.3 Whites Brid
0 1.3
Whites Brid

7.5 Neilsen

6.9 Belmont/99

6.9 3
Teilman 4.4
Neilsen
3 5.3
SR 99

1.6 5
S
.3
R 99

6.1 SR 99

6.9 6.1
Belmont/99
0 3
3 3

6.9 2.8
Pacific

2.8 Pacific

16.7 0.4
SR 99
0 SR 99 0
Olive/SR99

16.7 SR
0 99
0 17 10.1
Belmont

0.4 Belmont/99 0.4
SR 99

4.3 Olive/SR99 2
Olive
2 Olive

1.8 Olive

1.8 Olive
4 Belmont
4 Belmont
4 Belmont
6 Belmont

5.5 Belmont

1.8 M
1 otel
0 Motel

2.8 0.6
Weber
0 W
.4
eber

1.8 1.2
Olive

1.8 0.6
Weber

6.1 SR 99

4.3 Neilsen

4.4 5.3

4.9 SR 99

1.2 SR180-99
S
0 R180-99
0 Thorne

4.3 Divisadero
0 Thorne

1.6 SR 180

2.2 0
Thorne
0 Thorne
0 H
.1
St.

0.1 H St.

H
0 St.

5.5 Belmont

5.5 0
Fruit

0.4 Weber

0.4 2.7
Belmont
2 B
.9
elmont
0 0 2.7
0 Motel

1.9 0.4

0.4 Weber
W
0 eber

0.4 0
W
.4
eber

1.2 0
Fruit

0.6 Fruit

0.6 Olive

1.2 0.6
Fruit

0.6 Fruit

0.6 Olive

0.6 0.6
Olive

1.9 4.5
W
0 eber
0 H
.1
St.

4.5 0
H St.

4.4 Belmont

4.4 0.6
Olive
0 Olive
0 Olive
0 Olive
0 Olive
0 Wa nl ut
0 Wa nl ut
0 0.8
California

0.8 0.8
California
0 0
Tulare
0 0.1
California
0 0
T
0 ulare
0 Fresno
0 0
Tr ni ity
0 Fresno
0 Tr ni ity
0 0
0 Kearney
0 Tr ni ity
0 Kearney
0Fresno 0
Pottle
P
0 ottle
0 Fresno
0 0.1
California
0Tulare
0 P
0 ottle
0 Pottle

0.1 California

0.1 M.L. K ni g
0 0
Ventura
0 Pottle 0
Tulare
0 0 0
Fresno
0 0
0 0
Fresno
0Tulare
T
0 ulare
0Tulare
0 B
.1
St.
0Fresno
0 B
.1
St.

0.2 C St.
0 C
.2
St.
0 Trinity
0 Tr ni ity
0 Tr ni ity
0 Trinity
0 Tr ni ity
0 A St
0 0
0 0

1.3 B St

1.2 B St

1.2 B St
1 B
.2
St.
0 0
Amador 0
A St
0 0
Tr ni ity 0
Amador

1.3 Whites Brid 0

1.3 B St
0 Trinity 0
Trinity
0 0

4.9SR 99
0 SR 99
0 0
E St.
0 El Dorado

0.35.7 4.9
SR 99
1 B
.2
St.
0 Tuolumne
1 B
.2
St.
0 0

0.3 StanFresRp 0
0 StanFresRp

0.3 0.25.5

4.7 SR 99 0.2
Stanis/99
0 1
F
.1
resno
0 Fresno
0 Fresno/99 1
0 F
.3
resno
0 0.2
0 FresStanRp
0 Fresno/99 0.3 0.3

0.1 E St.

00.30 0
F St. 0
Tuolumne

0.3 0
F St.
0 0
.2
0 E St.

0.3 0.2
1 G St.

0.1 Stanislaus
H
0 St.

0.1 H St.
0 Ventura 0
0 Ventura

0.1 Ventu
0 ra
0 B
.1
St. 0
Ve
.1
ntura
0 0.2
0 B
.1
St.

0.1 B St. 0
Tulare
0 C
.2
St.
0 Tulare
0 C
.2
St.
5 SR
.5
99 C
0 St. C
0 St.
1 Golden/99 0.9
Golden/99 1.9
Ventura/99
3 SR
.7
99 5.8
SR 99 1.1
Fresno/99

4.7 SR 99
0 E St.
0 E St.

0.1 B St.
0 0.1
B St. 0
California
0 0
B
.1
St.

0.1 B St.
0 B
.1
St.
0 Ve
.2
ntura
C
0 St.
0 0
0 0.9
Golden/99

3.7 4.3
SR 99

3.7 4.3 0
Ventura/99
1 0
Ventura/99

1.5 Ventura/99

1.2 Ventura/99

1.7 1
0 E St.

1.7 Ventura
0 E St.
0 E St.
0 G
.5
St.

0.6 G St.

1.7 1.7
0 G
.5
St.
0 G
.5
St.

1.7 Ventura
0 H St.

H
0 St.
0 1.1
0 Fresno
F
0 resno
0 0 0
F
0 St.
0 0
0 0
F
.1
St.
0 0
G
2 St.
2 G St.
0 T
0 ulare
0 0
F St.
0 0
0 0.8
Fresno G
1 St.

0.1 Fresno 0.7
H St.
0 F
.3
resno
0 G
.9
St.
0 H St.
0 0
Fr
.3
esno

0.3 Fresno
2 2.1
G St. 0.2

0.2 H
0 St.
0 Broadway

0.1 Broadway 0.2
Stanislaus
0 Broadway
0 0
0 0.1
Tuolumne
0 H St.
0 0

0.1 Stanislaus

0.1 0
Stanislaus
0 Van Ness
0 Van Ness

0.6 G St. 0.3
Tulare

0.3 0
H
.4
St.
0 H St.
0 H
.5
St.

0.2 Tulare

0.3 0.5
H St. 0.5
Inyo 0
Broadway

0.5 Inyo

0.2 Tulare

0.2 0
Van Ness
0 Van Ness

0.2 Tulare
0 0
Fresno
0 0.3
Fresno
0 0

0.1 Tuolumne
0 Van Ness
0 Tuolumne
0 F
.1
resno
0 0
Van Ness 0
Fr
.1
esno
0M
0 St.

F
0 resno
0 1
S

4.6 R 180
1 S
.2
R 180

2.1 2
G Street 15
SR
.8
180

14.9 SR 180
1 G
.1
St.

El
0 Dorado
1 G St.
0 2
0 H St.
0 H St.

0.2 H St.

1.8 Divisadero
H
0 St. H
0 St.

0.1 Palm
0 Pa ml

0.2 H St.
0 H
.1
St.
0 0
Broadway 0.3

0.3 Broadway

1.5 1.4
Divisadero
0 Amador

0.2 Broadway
0 0.2
Broadway
0 Amador
0 1.4
Divisadero
0 0
Broadway
15 SR
.8
180

14.8 0.1

14.7 SR 180
15 SR
.8
180
0 0
Broadway
0 Broadway
0 Fulton 0
Fulton 0
Fulton

0.1 0
0 0 0

0.1 0.3 2.9
2 Palm

0.9 1.5
Palm

3.5 Pa ml

3.5 Palm

0.9 0.9

2.9 Pa ml

3.5 Palm

0.9 0.9 0.9

2.9 Palm 2.9
Pa ml 0.2 Olive

2.7 Pa ml 0.2 0.2 0.2

2.7 Pa ml

0.2 0.2 0.2
Olive

0.2 0.9
Belmont

0.2 Broadway 0.6
Belmont

0.2 Broadway
0 Broadway
0 Broadway

0.6 0.6

0.20.7 0.1
Fulton

0.1 Fulton

0.1 0.2 0.2
Olive
0 Broadway

0.2 0.2
0 0.2 0.2
Olive

00.2 Olive
0 0.2
Olive
0 Wishon
0 Wishon
0 Amador 0
Van Ness
0 Van Ness
0 Van Ness

0.1 1.2
0 Amador

0.1 Van Ness

1.2 0.11.2 1.2 0
M
0 St.

0.1 1
Divisadero

0.1 San Pab ol

0.1 Van Ness

0.1 Van Ness
0 0
.2

14.7 SR 180
15 S
.4
R 180

0.1 San Pab ol

0.1 San Pablo
0 Stanislaus
M
0 St. M
0 St.
0 Tuolumne
0 M St.

0.7 Divisadero

0.7 0.7
0 Tuolumne O
0 St.
0 Tuolumne
0 0.7 0 0 0.6
0 0
0 0
B al ckstone
0 Abby

0.2 Abb

0.1 y
Blackstone

0.2 Abby

0.6 Belmont
0 Van Ness

0.6 0.5 0.5
Belmont

15.4 SR 180
0 15.4
SR 180

14.7 SR 180 0.5

0.1 0.3
Belmont

0.1 0.1 0.1 0
San Pab ol
0 0
Van Ness
0 Van Ness
0 Olive

0.2 Van Ness
0 0
Olive
0 0.2
Van Ness
0 Olive
0 0 0 0
San Pablo
0 0 0

0.3 0.2

14.7 SR 180

15.4 SR 180

0.2 Belmont

0.1 B al ckstone
1 Belmont
1 1

12.7.9 13.4
SR 180

1.7 12.9
SR 180

13.4 0
0 1

0.1 Belmont

0.8 Abby

0.9 Abby
0 1.6

13.4 SR 180
0 0.9
2 1.1 1.1 1 1

0.7 0.7
Abby

0.7 Abby
0 0 0
Olive
1 1 1 1 1 1

0.6 Olive

0.6 Abby

0.2 Abby 0.9
Olive

0.4 0.4
0 0.2
Blackstone 0.2
Abby

0.2 0.2
Abby
0 East
0 Orange

0.3 Cedar
Cen
0 Chestnut Golden
0 Wil ol w
0 Peach

0.2 SR 41

0.3 SR 41 0
SR 41
0 Cherry
0 0
North
0 North

0.2 SR 41

0.3 SR 41
0 North
0 SR 41
0 North
0 SR 41

0.2 SR 41

0.3 SR 41
0 Cherry
0 Cherry
0 North
0 North
0 Cherry

0.1 Cherry
0 North
0 North
0 East
0 North
0 North
0 East
0 East
0 East

0.2 SR 41

0.3 SR 41 0
Jensen/SR 4
0 0 00
0 Jensen
0 0 0 0

0.1 Jensen

0.2 SR 41

0.1 0

0.3 SR 41

0.1 Jensen

0.1 Cherry

0.2 Cherry

0.1 0.1

0.1 0
Jensen
0 Cherry

0.1 0
Cherry
0 Jensen
0 Jensen
0 Church
0 Church

0.2 SR 41 0.1
Jensen/SR 4

0.4 SR 41
0 Church
0 0Church .4
SR 41

0.4 SR 41
0 SR 41
S
0 R 41
0 Cherry
0 Cherry
0 Church
0 0
Church
0 Church
0 3.

Church 3
SR 99
0 SR 41

3.9 SR 99

0.9 0.3

0.9 Golden Sta

0.3 0.1
Railroad

0.5 0.4

1.1 Jensen
0 East

0.1 0
Jensen/99

1.1 Jensen
0 2.1
SR 99

2.3 SR 99
0 East
0 East
0 2.1
SR 99

2.3 SR 99
0 Jensen/99
0 East

2.1 SR 99

2.3 SR 99

1.1 Jensen 0

1.5 Jensen/99
0 Jensen
0 1.1

1.5 Jensen

1.1 Jensen

1.5 Jensen
0 Golden Sta

1.5 Jensen
0 1
0 Golden Sta
1 1.2
Jensen/99

2.1 SR 99

3.9 SR 99

2.1 SR 99

3.9 SR 99

0.1 Church
0 Golden Sta

0.3 Golden Sta

1.1 Church

1.1 0
Railroad
0 0Railroad
0 Ra
0 ilroad

1.10 0
Railroad

0.1 0
Golden Sta

1.1 Ra
0 ilroad

0.8 0.3
S. East

0.3 S. East

0.3 S. East
0 Orange
0 Orange
0 North
0 North
0 Orange
0 Orange
00 0
North
0 0

0.3 0.3
Parkway

0.3 North
1 SR
.8
99 2 0.2
North

0.3 North/99
1 SR
.8
99 0.4
North/99
1 SR
.8
99 2.3
SR 99

2.3 SR 99

0.3 Cedar
0 0.2 0.1 0
0 Cedar 0
Cedar/99 1
SR
.8
99 1
SR
.8
99 2
SR 99
20 1
SR
.8
99 2
SR 99

0.2 0.3
North
2 SR 99
0 Cedar
0 0
Cedar

0.3 0 0
Cedar
0 Cedar
0 G
0 olden Sta
0 0
0 0
Golden Sta
0 Railroad
0 Golden Sta
0 Golden Sta
0 Golden Sta
0 Golden Sta
0 0.3
North

0.3 North

0.3 0

0.3 0
Golden Sta
0 0.3
North
0 0
Orange
0 Golden Sta
0 0
0 0
Go
0 lden Sta
0 0 0
Orange
0 0 1
Jensen

1.5 Jensen
0 Ra
0 ilroad
0Railroad 1

1.5 C
0 alwa
1 Jensen

1.5 Jensen
0 0
Orange
0 Orange
0 Calwa
0 Pul ml an 0
Calwa
0 1
Jensen

1.5 Jensen 0.1
0 0
Calwa
1 Jensen

0.1 Jensen
0 Jensen
0 Orange

0.8 Church

0.8 Church
0 Orange
0 0
Orange

0.8 Church
0 Orange
0 Orange
0 0
Orange

0.6 Church
0 Cedar
0 Annadale
0 0
Cedar
0 Calwa
0 Calwa
0 Jensen
0 Jensen
0 1.3
Jensen 0.1
Cedar

0.1 Cedar 0.1
Cedar

0.1 Cedar
0 Annadale

0.9 Jensen

1.3 Jensen

0.6 Church

0.6 Church
0 Cedar

0.1 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 Cedar

0.6 Church
0 Cedar

0.5 Church

0.5 0.6
Church

0.5 Church

0.4 SR 99

3.3 SR 99
0 0

3.3 SR 99

4.3 SR 99

4.3 SR 99 0 0 0
California
G

0.9 olden/99

0.3 Golden/99

0.9 Golden Sta

0.3 Golden/99
0 0
0 0.3
Golden Sta
0 0.3
Golden Sta
0 SR 41
0 G
.5
St.

0.5 G St.
0 G
.5
St. 0
G
.5
St.

1.7 Ventura
0 Broadway

0.9 Ventura
0 0
SR 41
0 SR 41
0 SR 41 0
VanNess/4
0 1
.1

0.1 0
Broadwy/41

0.1 Broadway

0.1 0.1

0.5 California

0.5 0
California
0 California

0.4 Van Ness
0 0.4
California
0 Van Ness
0 Van Ness
0 Van Ness

0.1 Broadway 0.1
0Broadway41
0 Los Angele
0 SR 41

0.1 Van Ness

0.1 0.1
Van Ness
0 VanNess/41
0 SR 41

0.1 Van Ness
0 0.1
Van Ness

0.1 0
Los Angele
0 M St.

M
0 St.
0 Inyo
0 I
.5
nyo
0 Van Ness
0 Van Ness
0 Inyo
0 Ve
.8
ntura
0 0
Van Ness
0 Ve
.8
ntura
0 Ve
.8
ntura
0 0
Inyo
0 Inyo
M
0 St. 0.2
Tulare
M
0 St. M
0 St.

0.1 Tulare
F
0 resno
0 F
0 resno
0 O St.
0 0.1
Tulare
0 O St.

O
0 St. O
0 St.
0 O St.

0.1 0
P St.
0 Tulare
0 P St.

0.1 0.1
Van Ness
0 Ve
.7
ntura
0 0
SR 41
M
0 St. M
0 St.
0 Ve
.7
ntura
0 0 0
San Benito
0 M St./41
0 M St./41
0 O St.
0 0
V
.7
entura

1.2 Ventura
0 O St.

O
0 St.

0.1 1.1
0 P St.

1.1 0
O St.
0 Inyo
0 Inyo
0 P St.
0 Inyo
0 P St.
0 0
Tulare R
0 St.
0 R St. 0
Tulare

1.1 0
R St.

R
0 St.
0 0.4
California

0.4 California

0.4 California
0 0
Butler
0 O St.
0 Butler
0 0
Butler
0 S. East

0.6 0.6
California

0.6 California
0 S. East
0 0 0 0
Butler
0 0
Butler
0 Butler
0 O St.
0 0 0
SR 41

0.5 0.1
O St./41 0.6
0 0.5
0 SR 41

0.5 Ventura

0.6 0.1
SR 41
0 SR 41 0Tu al re/41
0 0
Huntington

0.6 Ventura

0.1 Hazelwood

0.4 Ventura

0.1 Hazelwood
0 0.5
Ventura
0 0 0

0.1 Hazelwood

0.1 0.1
0 First
0 First

0.1 Hazelwood

0.1 Hazelwood
0 First
0 0.4
Ventura
0 First

0.5 Ventura
0 First
0 0.4
Ventura

0.5 Ventura
0 First
0 0
0 Huntington
0 First
0 0.4
Ventura

0.5 Ventura
0 0
Huntington
0 P St.
0 P St.

0.6 0.6
F
0 resno
0 P St.

F
0 resno
0 F
0 resno
0 0
R St.

F
0 resno
0 0 0
Fresno 0
Fresno 0
Divisadero
0 Fresno
0Tulare
0 Tulare
0 U St. 0
Tulare
0 0.1
U St.

0.1 0.1
0 Fresno
0 0 0 0 0
0 1

0.8 Belmont
1 0.7 10

12.9 SR 180

0.8 1
Belmont
1 0.8
Belmont
0 1

0.8 0.7
Belmont

12.9 SR 180

13.4 SR 180

0.8 Olive

0.8Olive 0.7
Olive

0.7 Olive

0.7 0.7

0.7 0

00.7 0
Fresno 0.7
0 Fresno
0 48.
.
18 13.4
SR 180

4.1 SR 180/41

8.8 SR 180
0 0

0.7 0.7

0.6 Belmont

0.7 13.4
SR 180

0.3 3.8
SR 180/41

8.8 SR 180
0 0
Fresno
0 0 0 0.1
Fresno 0.6
Olive

0.1 Fresno

0.6 Olive

0.1 0
Tulare
0 SR 41 0.2 0

0.2 0
0 0
Tulare
0 SR 41 0 0.2

0.3 0 0.2 0 0.2
Tulare

0.3 0.3 0.3
Tulare

0.4 0.3
SR 41
0 SR 41

0.3 Divisad/41
0 First
0 First
0 First 0.4
Tulare
0 0
First
0 First

0.4 Tulare

0.4 Tulare
0 First 0
First

0.1 First

0.1 First
0 First

0.1 First

0.1 Firs 0.6 t

0.5 Belmont
0 SR 41 0.3
SR 180/41 8.8
SR 180

9.6 SR 180

8.8 SR 180
0 SR 180/41

0.3 SR 41

0.5 Belmont

0.5 0.3
SR 180/41
0 SR 41
0 0
SR 180/41

0.6 Olive

0.2 Olive
0 SR 180/41 3.8
SR 180/41
0 0.4
Olive

0.3 Olive

3.8 SR 41

0.1 First 0.4

0.3 0
First
0 First

0.3 0.3
Belmont

0.3 0.3
0 First
0 First
0 0.3
Belmont

0.3 0.3

0.3 Belmont

0.10.3 0

8.8 9.3
SR 180
0 8.8
SR 180

9.3 SR 180
0 SR 180/41
0 0
First
0 First
0 First

0.4 Olive
0 0
First
0 First
0 First

0.4 Olive

0.5 California

0.5 California
0 Orange
0 0 0
Orange
0 Orange

0.1 0 0
Butler
0 Butler
0 Orange
0 Orange
0 Orange
0 Butler 0
Orange
0 Butler
0 Orange
0 0
Butler
0 Butler
0 Orange
0 0 0
Orange
0 0
Orange
0 0.3
Ventura

0.5 Ventura

0.3 Ventura
0 0.3
Ventura
0 0
0 Huntington
0 0
Huntington
0 0.3
0 6th

0.3 Ventura
0 Orange
0 0.3

0.3 0
6th
0 6th
0 0
Huntington
0 6th
0 0.3

0.3 Ventura
0 0.3
Ventura

0.3 Ventura
0 0
Huntington
0 Huntington
0 0
Huntington
0 Huntington
0 0.3
Ventura
0 Ventura

0.2 0
0 Huntington
0 Huntington

0.2 California

0.2 California 0.2
Cedar

0.2 Cedar

0.2 Cedar
0 Butler
0 Butler
0 Butler
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 0
Cedar
0 Butler
0 Cedar
0 Butler
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 0
0 0
Ventura

0.2 Ventura
0 0
Huntington
0 0
Huntington
0 Cedar
0 0.2
0 00
Cedar
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 0.2
0 Cedar
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Cedar
0 0.2 0.20
0 0
0 Kings Canyo

0.2 0
0 Kings Canyo

0.2 Tulare

0.2 Tulare
0 6th
0 6th
0 6th
0 6th

0.2 Tulare
0 6th
0 6th
0 6th
0 6th
0 6th
0 6th
0 6th

0.2 Tulare

0.1 Tulare

0.3 Belmont
0 0.3

0.2 0.3

0.2 0

0.3 Belmont

0.2 0 0

8.8 9.3
SR 180
0 0.3

0.2 Belmont
0 Millbrook 0.3

0.2 0
Mil bl rook
0 Millbrook
0 SR 180/41
0 0.2
Olive

0.2 Olive
0 0
Millbrook

0.2 Olive 0
Millbrook
0 Mil bl rook
0 Millbrook
0 0.3
Belmont

0.2 0

0.3 Belmont

0.2 Belmont
0 Belmont

0.2 Belmont

4.6 SR 180

4.9 SR 1800
SR 168/180
0 Olive
0 Olive

0.1 Tulare
0 Cedar
0 Cedar
0 0.1
Tulare

0.2 Tulare
0 0

0.1 Cedar
0 Cedar

0.1 0.1
0 Cedar
0 0.1
Cedar
0 Cedar
0 0

0.1 Cedar
0 Cedar

0.1 0.1
0 Cedar

0.1 Cedar
0 Ceda
0 r
.1
Cedar
0 Cedar

0.2 Tulare
0 Tulare
0 Tulare
0 0
0 0
Belmont

4.6 SR 180

4.9 SR 180

0.1 Cedar

0.4 Cedar
0 0.1
Belmont

0.4 Cedar

0.4 0
SR 180

0.3 Cedar

4.3 SR 180 0.3
SR 180

4.9 SR 180
0 Olive
0 0.3
SR 180

0.1 Cedar

0.1 Ceda
0 r
.1
Cedar

0.1 Olive

0.1 Cedar

0.1 Cedar
0 0.1
Belmont

0.2 Belmont
0 Belmont

0.2 Belmont

0.1 Olive

4.6 1
SR
.6
99 2
SR 99
0 0
Golden Sta
0 Golden Sta
0 0
Golden Sta
0 Golden Sta
0 Golden Sta
0 Map el

0.3 North
0 Map el
0 Map el
0 Front
F
0 ro
0 Front
0 0
Chestnut
0 0
0 0
0 Muscat
0 Muscat
0 Muscat
0 Muscat 0
Muscat
0 0.3
North
0 0.3
North
0 0
Chestnut
0 0
Map el
0 Map el
0 Map el
0 Map el
0 Map el0.9 Jensen

1.2 Jensen 0.1
Map el

0.1 Map el

0.9 Jensen

1.2 Jensen

0.1 Map el
0 Map el

0.1 0.5
Church 0
Map el
0 Maple

0.2 Church

0.3 Map el

Fresno City CouncilFebruary 1, 2024

Fresno City Council
February 1, 2024